Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Church House (Westminster) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham Joint Sewerage District) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COUNTRIES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir PARK GOFF: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that those responsible for the flotation in London of various loans to Brazilian public authorities now in default have, after three years, failed in their attempt to protect the interests of British investors in those defaulted loans; and will he, therefore, now request His Majesty's Minister in Brazil to endeavour to obtain redress, as the Government can represent the varied British interests more comprehensively than the finance houses?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): My hon. Friend will have observed that on the 6th February full details were published in London of the decree issued by the Brazilian Government on the previous day fixing new conditions for the service during the next four years of all the Brazilian Federal, State and municipal foreign loans. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend does not at present consider it would be advisable to adopt the action proposed.

Sir P. GOFF: In view of the many British investors who have been treated in this way, will the Government maintain the embargo on foreign loans?

Mr. EDEN: That is another question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why is there this differential treatment as between Brazil and Russia?

Mr. EDEN: This is a method by which Brazil is making payments.

Mr. BURNETT: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Rumania have not yet completed payments due to British holders of Hungarian securities under the protocol of Innsbruck and the Prague and Paris arrangements; and whether he will make representations to have the matter put right?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, my right hon. Friend does not consider that it would serve any useful purpose for His Majesty's Government to make special representations on this matter at present.

Sir ALAN McLEAN (for Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE): 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Brazil has defaulted three times within 30 years, and has this week imposed a further scheme of default involving losses on £250,000,000 of British savings; and will he now, before considering requests for lifting the embargo upon the issue of foreign loans, cause an analysis to he made as to the extent to which Britain has benefited by lending to foreign borrowers in order to obtain export trade at the expense of British savings?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am fully aware of the losses caused to British investors in Brazil and elsewhere by the transfer difficulties which have resulted from the drop in the wholesale prices of primary commodities and the falling off in international trade. These and all other relevant considerations are being kept in mind in connection with the question of the embargo on the issue of foreign loans.

Sir A. McLEAN: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Brazilian default plan involves the abandonment, in certain cases, of that special security of the investors which consists of a sinking fund invested in the names of independent trustees?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should not like to interpret the scheme within the scope of an answer to a question, but, if I can be of any assistance to my hon. Friend in elucidating any point, I shall only be too happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MANCHURIA.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of difficulties to this country that have been caused by the delay in recognising the Government of Manchukuo; and if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the establishment of this State?

Mr. EDEN: I am not aware of any serious inconvenience having been caused to British interests in Manchuria as a result of His Majesty's Government's abstention from according recognition to the present regime there. As regards the second part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 31st January in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

Mr. THORNE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information in regard to Japan and the centring of troops in Manchuria; and whether any fortifications are being erected on the frontiers?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Mr. THORNE: Will the League of Nations or the Foreign Office take any notice of the strained relations existing between Japan and Russia?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What action would this Government take supposing Japan were building fortifications in Manchuria at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT (RUSSIA).

Captain FULLER: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he
will give an assurance that no disarmament convention will be signed unless Russia is a party to it?

Mr. EDEN: The efforts of His Majesty's Government have been and will continue to be directed towards obtaining agreement amongst all the Powers participating in the Disarmament Conference, to all of whom they have, accordingly, communicated their recent memorandum on disarmament.

Captain FULLER: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the precarious position in which India will be placed if the convention does not include Russia?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be assured that we always bear all relevant matters in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARAGUAY AND BOLIVIA.

Mr. PERKINS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the number of casualties in the war between Paraguay and Bolivia; and whether hostilities have yet ceased?

Mr. EDEN: I regret that no accurate estimate of the number of casualties is available. The armistice, which came into force on the 18th December, after being extended from the 30th December, finally expired at midnight on 8th-9th January. No report of serious fighting has, however, been received since the expiration of the armistice. The League of Nations Commission has remained on the spot and negotiations are continuing.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (MINISTER'S FAR EAST TOUR).

Captain PEAKE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information on the proposed visit of the deputy Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia to certain countries in the Far East?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were informed some time ago by His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia of this proposed visit, which is one of good will. It is understood that Mr. Latham will visit the Netherlands East Indies, Singapore, Hong Kong,
China and Japan. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been happy to promise their assistance in connection with the tour, which they feel confident will serve a valuable purpose in promoting closer relations with the countries to be visited.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALKAN STATES.

Mr. MABANE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Balkan Pact?

Mr. EDEN: A Balkan Pact was signed at Athens on 9th February by representatives of Greece, Turkey, Rumania and Yugoslavia. The text has been published in the Press. I believe that the Bulgarian Government were given an opportunity to adhere to it, but declined to do so on the ground that the pact guarantees the maintenance of existing frontiers.

Mr. MABANE: Do the Government regard this pact as a contribution to the pacification of Europe, or do they consider that by guaranteeing the frontiers of the particular States it is likely to make pacification more difficult?

Mr. EDEN: I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed the views of His Majesty's Government in answer to a question on 5th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BALTIC SEA (ADMIRALTY CHARTS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 9.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the representations recently made by the Stockholm Association of Shipowners to the Swedish Government alleging the necessity for a revision of the existing charts of the Baltic Sea; and if he is satisfied that the Admiralty charts of that sea still maintain their high standard of accuracy?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I have no knowledge of representations having been recently made to the Swedish Government as to the accuracy of the existing Swedish charts. I am satisfied with the high standard of accuracy of the Admiralty charts and plans of the Baltic area, of which there are more than 100.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when soundings or survey work were last carried out by the Admiralty in the Baltic?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Of course, the Admiralty cannot survey in foreign territorial waters. We have to rely on the countries concerned for information as regards their surveys.

CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. PEARSON: 10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of warships on order or building on the Clyde, on the Tyne, and at Barrow; and the estimated value of the work in each area, respectively?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The Tyne is building, or has been allocated, the hulls and machinery of six ships and the machinery of three; the Clyde has the hulls and machinery of 20 ships and the machinery of three; Barrow has the hulls and machinery of six and the hulls of two. The value of the orders placed on the Tyne is £2,500,000; the corresponding figures for the Clyde and Barrow are £5,600,000 and £2,600,000 respectively.

Mr. PEARSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment is highest on the Tyne, and will he bear that fact in mind in placing further contracts?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is dangerous to have these ships built by private enterprise, and should they not be built in national dockyards?

Mr. THORNE: Are the contracts for these ships open to competition or are they allocated?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: My answer to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) is that we have to be almost entirely guided by prices and have to take the lowest tender. In answer to the Noble Lady, most certainly not; we are largely dependent on private firms.

Mr. McKEAG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very pressing need on the Tyneside, and will he take steps to ensure that the Tyne receives an even more generous allocation of such orders as may be available?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I fully sympathise with the hon. Member, and I wish we had more ships to go round all the yards. I have to accept the lowest tender, and I have to be guided in that way.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that, comparatively speaking, the Clyde has 10 shipyards for every one in Newcastle and Barrow?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state to what extent the present cruiser construction programme is affected by the London Naval Treaty?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the programme for 1934. The total replacement tonnage which can be laid down in 1934, 1935 and 1936 is limited to the outstanding tonnage over-age on the 31st December, 1936, together with the tonnage becoming over-age in 1937, 1938 and 1939. The gun calibre is limited to 6.1 inch.

PALESTINE.

Mr. JANNER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate number of tourists who visited Palestine during the months of December, 1932 and 1933, and January, 1933 and 1934, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The immigration returns do not distinguish between tourists and other travellers. The number of travellers who entered Palestine in December, 1932, was 3,667, in January, 1933, 3,248, and in December, 1933, 3,960. The return for January, 1934, is not yet available.

Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. Member satisfied that there are no unnecessary restrictions placed on tourists to prevent them going to Palestine?

Mr. MacDONALD: Quite satisfied.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Englishmen have been refused entry into Palestine and for what reasons; and what is the number of British who have been refused visas?

Mr. MacDONALD: This information is not available in any of the returns which are furnished by the Palestine Government.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: If I bring to the hon. Gentleman's notice a case in which it was refused, will he take up the question?

Mr. MacDONALD: Certainly I will.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman also take up the question of why British subjects in Palestine are not allowed to vote?

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Mr. RANKIN): 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information regarding the provision that travellers to Palestine must pay a deposit against their ultimate departure from the territory?

Mr. MacDONALD: The written reply to the previous question by my hon. Friend, which was put down for the 21st of December, was recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 29th of January. That reply was framed in the light of the information available at the time. Since then it is learnt that the Government of Palestine have decided that the provision regarding a deposit shall be applied in the case of visitors to Palestine, travelling otherwise than by first class, from all countries.

Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that no unnecessary regulations prevail which will stop people who want to visit Palestine from going there?

Mr. MacDONALD: The object of the regulation, as the hon. Member knows, is to prevent illicit immigration, and it was decided upon in order to achieve that object.

Mr. JANNER: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it will not result in depriving people of the right to go to Palestine?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am satisfied that that is being as much achieved as is consistent with the main object of the regulation.

FIJI (SUVA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given consideration to the
reply of the Suva Municipal Council to the communication which he addressed to them on 30th August last; whether it is his intention to insist that a majority of the municipal council shall consist of official nominees and that the chairman shall be an official nominee; and whether he can give the House an indication of the reason for this policy?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: My right hon. Friend has not been in communication with the municipal council of Suva. Proposals for reconstituting the municipal council of Suva were laid by the Governor of Fiji before the Fiji Legislative Council in October last. They will not be debated until the next meeting of the Legislative Council, which is to be held in March. This procedure was adopted with the object of providing members of the council with an opportunity for discussing the proposals with their constituents. Pending the debate in the Legislative Council my right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand from that that no letter was sent on 30th August, and, if so, is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a copy of a report from the municipal council of Suva in which they refer to it?

Mr. MacDONALD: My right hon. Friend has made no communication. Possibly there has been a misunderstanding, and it may refer to a communication from the Colonial Secretary in Fiji about which we have no information.

CEYLON.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how often the Governor of Ceylon has vetoed legislation passed by the State Council?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: No Bills passed by the State Council since its constitution have been vetoed by the Governor. A Bill with the object of granting relief to judgment debtors, which was only passed by a majority of one in the State Council, was reserved by the Governor for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, and assent to it was refused.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FOOTPATHS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport in how many instances during the past 12 months he has refused to assist road improvement schemes on the ground that the instructions contained in the Road Traffic Act of 1930 as to the provision of adequate footpaths and margins for the safety of pedestrians and riders have not been complied with; and whether he can give an assurance that the provision of such facilities is borne in mind in connection with all applications for road grants?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT: (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Where practical and desirable, footpaths or margins, or both, have been provided in all road widening schemes assisted by grants from the Road Fund during the last 12 months, and the provision of these facilities is always borne in mind. In only one case has it been necesary to refuse a grant oh this account.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that some of the existing footpaths are becoming grass grown owing to disuse?

ROADS, SCUNTHORPE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the decision of the Ministry to transfer certain roads from the Urban District Council of Scunthorpe to the Lindsey County Council has resulted in putting a burden on other urban districts which are more heavily rated than Scunthorpe; if he will indicate what his policy is as regards the transfer of roads from urban districts to the county council; and if he will take into account in future applications the incidence of rates in county areas?

Mr. STANLEY: The main consideration is that laid down in Section 37 of the Local Government Act, 1929, itself, which is
that the road is a road situate in a part of the urban district which is of a rural character.
In reaching a decision on these applications, as was the case in respect of the application from the Scunthorpe and Frodingham Urban District Council, I have regard to all the circumstances, including any evidence that may he adduced to the effect that the area in
question is likely to become urban in character, and on the financial result of granting the application.

HYDE PARK.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: 25.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider providing extra lamps on the roadways in Hyde Park, especially on the North and West, in view of the great amount of traffic there?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The class of vehicles which can use these roadways is limited, and there is a 20 mile speed limit in the Royal Parks. I am afraid that, in these circumstances, and having regard to the financial considerations which it involves, I cannot see my way to entertain my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal.

Captain HOPE: When the financial situation is easier in the right hon. Gentleman's Department will he consider putting up some more lamps?

Mr. LEVY: If we cannot have more lamps, may we have larger lamps, affording greater illumination than now exists?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I have settled my Estimates for the coming year with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have not the funds. In considering next year's Estimates, I will look into the matter.

Captain HOPE: 26.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider opening the road north of the Serpentine to motor traffic, in view of the negligible amount of use it is now put to?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I regret that I cannot agree to allow motor traffic on this road, which is now the only quiet road in Hyde Park for pedestrians and invalids, and runs past the band stand.

ACCIDENT RISKS (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. THORNE: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether horse or motor drivers of mail vans are insured, or whether the Government are financially responsible for accidents where the drivers are involved?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The drivers of mail vans owned by the Post
Office are not insured. In the event of an accident in which the driver of such a van is involved, it is the practice of the Department to accept the same degree of liability in respect of a claim for civil damages as is imposed on a private employer?

Mr. THORNE: Have the Department any insurance scheme of their own from which compensation is paid?

Sir E. BENNETT: No, the Government do not insure their property or their servants. The object of private third-party insurance is, of course, to secure the existence, so to speak, of a definite person who can and must meet damages assessed against him. In the case of Government property or servants, no such insurance is necessary, because the risks are spread over the whole of the taxpaying community.

Mr. THORNE: Is it the case that where there is an accident involving one of your servants compensation is paid out of the Exchequer or the receipts of the Post Office?

Sir E. BENNETT: Out of State funds.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it the case that the Post Office denied liability for an accident to the wife of a former Member for the constituency which I now represent?

Sir E. BENNETT: The reason why we did not acknowledge liability in that case was that, according to the evidence before us, we did not think that the responsibility for what happened was on our driver. I need not say that in a case like that the aggrieved person can of course proceed against the driver in the courts, and we accept service on behalf of the driver and, if the case is given against him, also pay up.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of Government Departments which adopt third-party insurance in respect of the motor transport they directly or indirectly employ; and, if any Department does not employ such third-party insurance, whether he can state the method adopted when dealing with claims against the Department concerned in respect of any accident?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Motor vehicles, if directly employed in the public service
of the Crown, are not insured by Government Departments against third-party risks. In such cases it is the practice for the Government Department concerned to assume the same degree of liability in respect of claims to civil damages as is imposed upon a private employer.

MOTOR CAR HEAD-LIGHTS (DIPPING).

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to make the dipping of headlights at night compulsory?

Mr. STANLEY: Ordinarily a driver should dip or dim his head-lights when approaching another vehicle at night, but in an emergency such a course may sometimes cause rather than prevent danger. For this, among other reasons, I have up to the present decided against any Regulation which would make the dipping or dimming of head-lights compulsory.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the Minister aware that many accidents are caused by the failure to dim headlights; and in view of that fact, will he not reconsider his decision?

Mr. STANLEY: I have already informed my hon. Friend that I do not consider that, in all cases, greater danger is caused by not dimming headlights. In some cases I think that the dipping or dimming of headlights may he a greater danger.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is the Minister not aware that there is no danger of accident if headlights are dipped, provided that the left-hand headlight is kept on while the other is switched off?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

PARKED MOTOR CARS (LIGHTS).

Mr. RUTHERFORD: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is compulsory at all recognised parking-places in London to keep side and tail lights burning while a car is left after lighting-up time?

Mr. STANLEY: Vehicles standing on authorised car parks are required to keep side and tail lights burning after lighting-up time, except on 21 car parks in Central London. The Commissioner of Police has intimated that cars may stand
without lights during the hours of darkness, except in foggy weather, in these places, as they are considered to be adequately lighted.

HIGHWAY CODE.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making an arrangement whereby the revised edition of the Highway Code, now in course of preparation, will be issued free from the condition by which Crown copyright is reserved, so that persons responsible for the production of newspapers, periodicals, journals, and books may be encouraged to assist in making the provisions of the Code known to all road users by reproducing copious extracts from it in their publications or by republishing it in a popular form?

Mr. STANLEY: The copyright of all Government publications is vested in His Majesty's Stationery Office. Permission is, however, readily given for the reproduction of the provisions of the Highway Code.

CONNAUGHT ROAD BRIDGE, SOUTH-WEST HAM.

Mr. THORNE (for Mr. GROVES): 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the railway company is contemplating operating a notice that no vehicle exceeding five tons shall cross Connaught Road bridge, South-West Ham; and whether, in view of the consequent congestion of traffic to and from the docks, and the possibility of a breakdown in the supply of London's food, and seeing that if the proposed restrictions are operated it will not be possible for the West Ham Fire Brigade to answer a call to the other side of the Connaught bridge, he will authorise a scheme of work strengthening this bridge, so that it will carry all presently workable vehicles and thereby ensure London's safety and food?

Mr. STANLEY: My information does not agree with that of the hon. Member. I am informed that the bridge in question belongs not to the railway company but to the Port of London Authority, and that they propose to prohibit the use of it by vehicles with an axle load exceeding five and three-quarters tons, which represents a total weight considerably above the five tons mentioned by the
hon. Member. I am further informed that the restriction proposed would not prevent the West Ham Fire Brigade vehicles from crossing the bridge. I am, however, communicating with the Port Authority in the matter, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: Will the Minister consider the postponement of the making of an Order under Section 30 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, until the highway authorities have had an opportunity of presenting considered schemes for the reconstruction of bridges, as otherwise serious public inconvenience will be caused?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member will know that the Section has not yet been brought into operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

YEOMANRY (COST).

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the approximate cost to the State per year for the feeding, clothing and training of a yeomanry trooper, corporal and sergeant?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The approximate annual cost of a yeomanry trooper is £28 10s., of a corporal £30 and of a sergeant £32. My Noble Friend will find on page 69 of the current Army Estimates a table showing the estimated annual cost of certain units of the Territorial Army.

POLICY.

Captain FULLER: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the rôle for which the Army is organised and equipped at the present time?

Mr. COOPER: This is not a subject which can appropriately be expounded within the ambit of an answer to a question.

Captain FULLER: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to expound it when he introduces the Army Estimates?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

HOUSING (MIDLAND TOWNS).

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention
has been drawn to the serious shortage of housing accommodation in certain Midland towns; and what steps he proposes to take in the public interest to increase the production of houses?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has received resolutions to the effect suggested from certain towns in the Midlands and elsewhere. It is open to and is, indeed, the duty of the local authorities to submit to him any proposals for providing further houses which may be required and are not being provided by private enterprise.

Mr. RAMSAY: In view of the appalling shortage of houses and the fact that none have been built, cannot my hon. Friend formulate a policy which will do credit to the Government?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I do not accept the statement that none have been built, because the building at present and next year will constitute a record.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it a fact, as stated, that in the view of the Ministry there are already sufficient houses to let at a rent of 10s. and under?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WAR MATERIALS (EXPORTS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of the exports of arms and ammunition and warships, exclusive of those for the use of His Majesty's United Kingdom forces serving overseas during the last 10 years, distinguishing those sent to Empire countries from those sent to foreign countries?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): During the 10 years 1923 to 1932 the total declared value of the domestic exports from the United Kingdom of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores (except sporting arms and ammunition) and of new war vessels consigned to British countries was £22,939,000, and to foreign countries £21,573,000. Similar particulars for the year 1933 are not readily available. The value of Imperial Government owned stores exported for Imperial Government use abroad is excluded from these figures, but they include the value of exports of explosives for industrial use.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is meant by the word "domestic" in that connection?

ANGLO-RUSSIAN TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the negotiations for a trade agreement between Great Britain and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. The negotiations have now been completed, and it is hoped that the agreement will be signed on Friday.

Mr. BOOTHBY: When will the terms of the agreement be laid before the House?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A White Paper will be available for hon. Members as soon as possible after signature. I cannot say when; I should think on Monday, at latest.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Government candidate at Lowestoft has declared that herring are an item of trade in the agreement, and will information as to those provisions be conveyed to the House?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is impossible for me to disclose the character of the agreement, but it provides improved opportunities for all trades that are interested in the Russian market.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is there provision for the trade in herring, in the agreement?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Have the Government taken any steps to protect the rights of British creditors?

Mr. HARBORD: Is there any likelihood of the 8,000 barrels of cured herring at Great Yarmouth being sold to the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot add to my previous answers—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose.

HERRING INDUSTRY (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).

Sir A. KNOX: 34.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can state what number of barrels of herring have been taken from British exporters by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics in each year from 1922 to 1933?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As the reply is somewhat detailed I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the reply be in barrels or hundredweights?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Hundredweights.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many hundredweights make a barrel?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down, I will endeavour to give him the further information that he requires.

Following is the reply:

The quantities of cured or salted herring (not canned) exported from the United Kingdom to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics during the years 1922 to 1933 were as follows. Statistics of the number of barrels are not available.

Cwts.


1922
…
…
…
92,135


1923
…
…
…
13,545


1924
…
…
…
806,841


1925
…
…
…
195,284


1926
…
…
…
11,750


1927
…
…
…
213,509


1928
…
…
…
102,285


1929
…
…
…
33,000


1930
…
…
…
182,295


1931
…
…
…
37,616


1932
…
…
…
402,475


1933
…
…
…
5,283

MIGRATION.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the balance of migration between the United Kingdom and the Dominions for the 12 months up to 30th September, 1933, or up to 31st December, 1933, if the figures are available?

Dr. BURGIN: During the 12 months ended 31st December, 1933, the number of British immigrants into the United Kingdom from other parts of the British Empire outside Europe exceeded the number of British emigrants to those countries by 23,882.

FOUNDLING HOSPITAL SITE.

Dr. HOWITT: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government are prepared to make a grant towards the purchase, in the public interest, of the site of the Foundling Hospital?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any promise of a Government grant.

SHIP REPAIRS (OXY-ACETYLENE APPARATUS).

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that oxyacetylene apparatus is used in effecting repairs to ships while in wet dock; and whether, having regard to the danger of men being gassed when these processes are used in confined spaces, he will consider the desirability of making applicable to such cases the regulations which are now in force for such repairs when carried out in dry dock?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The extension of the regulations to ship repairing in wet docks generally would require legislation, but I have no reason to think that ship repairing firms do not take similar precautions when using oxy-acetylene apparatus, whether the ships are in a wet or a dry dock. The Shipbuilding Employers' Federation are circularising their members as to the special dangers revealed by a recent fatality at Millwall and as to the precautions necessary. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind in which adequate precautions do not appear to have been taken and will send me particulars, I will have inquiries made.

WILD BIRDS (PROTECTION).

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 39.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the serious losses of valuable homing pigeons by the depredations of the peregrine falcon and other birds of prey; and if he proposes that the protection now accorded to such birds be withdrawn?

Mr. HACKING: Representations on this subject have been made to the Home
Office. The power of the Secretary of State to make local Orders under the Wild Birds Protection Acts withdrawing or otherwise varying the protection accorded to the peregrine falcon by those Acts, is exercisable only on application made to my right hon. Friend by the council of a county or county borough. The question is therefore one for consideration in the first instance by the appropriate local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CUSTOMS REVENUE.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in publishing the revenue from Customs, as apart from Revenue duties, he will consider publishing in greater detail the revenue from the different articles on which the duties are imposed so that it may be possible to see how the aggregate sum is made up?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Full information is always given in the financial statement which accompanies the Budget speech. Detailed information could not be given earlier without great practical inconvenience.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).

Sir BASIL PETO: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amending Section 24 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, in order to replace the revenue now lost to the Exchequer by the progressive absorption by the co-operative societies of retail trade and industrial production which is or has been carried on by limited companies or private individuals whose profits are subject to Income Tax?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Section to which my hon. Friend refers has been repealed, and no question of amending it can arise.

Sir B. PETO: Is it not, in fact, still the law of the land, although the hon. Gentleman says that it has been repealed, and is not that the reason why the co-operative societies are not charged Income Tax on their full revenue?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. The Section no longer has any effect. It provided for the exception of industrial and
provident societies from Income Tax under Schedules C and D, and, of course, that no longer applies.

Mr. THORNE: Can the Financial Secretary give any reason for this vicious propaganda against the co-operative societies?

Mr. LAWSON: Are not these Gentlemen rather giving the game away too openly?

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage increase in the trading profits of retail co-operative societies in England and Scotland, respectively, in 1933 compared with 1918?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statistical summaries, showing the capital, sales, surplus, etc., of co-operative societies in Great Britain, published in Part 3 of the Annual Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. Separate figures for England and Scotland are not published.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been formed of the amount lost to the national revenue during the past year by the absorption of private trading concerns by co-operative societies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is it not a fact that records must be kept of the net profits or tax paid by private traders; and, if and when such traders' businesses have been purchased and carried on with the same trading results by co-operative societies, could not the smaller tax paid by the latter he subtracted from the sums paid by the former to provide the answer to my question?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should be only too glad to give my hon. Friend all the information that he desires, but to answer his question we should require to know the number of private traders absorbed by co-operative societies, whether they would have continued in existence if they had not been absorbed, what profits they would have made if they had not been absorbed, and what would have been the tax on the
income from the capital sums paid by co-operative societies for the purpose of taking over private traders. I am sure my hon. Friend will see that, without details on all these points, I could not possibly answer his question.

Sir B. PETO: Although there may be such details as the Financial Secretary has pointed out, which are difficult to compute, is it not very necessary that the Treasury should make the best estimate that they can, in view of the fact that the co-operative societies' policy is to eliminate all private traders, and that, if that policy is achieved, the Treasury will have to find sources of revenue to replace the consequent loss in that direction?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Naturally, we should desire to see justice done, but our primary function is to make sure that we receive all the tax that is due to us. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are most vigilant in that regard.

Mr. THORNE: If any individual has the maximum amount of money, namely £200, invested in a co-operative society, has he not to show that information on his Income Tax return?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: All profits have to be shown.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the receipts from the Beer Duty during the present financial year to the latest available date; and the corresponding total for the same period last year?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The net amounts of revenue derived from the Beer Duty during the 10 months ended 31st January, in each of the years 1932–33 and 1933–34, were:

£


1932–33
…
…
…
64,555,000


1933–34
…
…
…
50,968,000

The latter figure is provisional.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not that prove that people do not really want more beer, no matter what the Government think?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for
Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give to the House as to the order in which public business will be taken to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): In order to meet the convenience of Members, it is proposed to alter the order in which the business will be considered to-morrow. It will now be as follows:

Additional Import Duties Order No. 1, 1934, which relates to oats.
Import Duties (Foreign Discrimination) Order, 1934.
Cattle (Import Regulation) Order, 1933.
Additional Import Duties Order No. 23, 1933.

I may say that it is hoped to conclude the discussion on the first Order, relating to oats, not later than 6.30 p.m.

Mr. JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware, that as far as the Opposition are concerned, we would have preferred that the second Order should have been taken first. In view, however, of the fact that the alteration is more convenient to Members in other parts of the House, we do not press our objection. But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in addition to the assurance which he has given, and for which we thank him, he can assure us that the first business will be brought to a termination at an early stage, at least about 6.30, so that we can go on to the very important Foreign Discrimination Order which is second on the list?

The PRIME MINISTER: The House knows that I cannot assure hon. Members how long a Debate will take, but I have made the announcement that I have in the hope that the House will do its best to co-operate in the arrangement.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

BRITISH EMPIRE POPULATION (RE-DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. LEVY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call atten-
tion to the question of the re-distribution of the population of the British Empire, and move a Resolution.

MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND STERILISATION.

Mr. MOLSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Mental Deficiency and the Report of the Royal Commission on Sterilisation, and move a Resolution.

LEISURE AND WORK.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the necessity for the better distribution of leisure and work, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to National Health Insurance, and move a Resolution.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMAMENTS.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the private manufacture of armaments in the pursuit of private profit is contrary to the public interest and should he prohibited, and this House calls upon His Majesty's Government to take immediate measures to this end.
I make no apology for raising an issue which has disturbed the public mind in this and other countries for some years past. There are, indeed, very good reasons for the nervousness that is felt in this connection among those who desire peace; and I feel sure that whatever may happen to this Motion, those who are pursuing peace between the nations of the world will not rest satisfied until the private manufacture of arms is abolished, at any rate in this country. This issue had begun to disturb our people at home some years prior to the Great War but, during the War and since, some of the ugliest transactions in the commercial relationships of Europe have emerged. The charges against private manufacturers of arms became so insistent some years ago that the League of Nations set up a Commission to inquire into the allegations. If nothing else is said in favour of my Motion, I feel sure that the wording of Article 8 of the Covenant supports my contention to the full. This is what it says:
Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman complete the quotation?

Mr. DAVIES: If hon. Members will remain silent, I will read on; I intended reading on. I want to make out a case for the Motion without introducing any heat or propaganda into my speech. The Article proceeds:
The Council shall decide how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
I do not think there is anything in the latter part of the Article to support the views of hon. Members who are opposed to my Motion. The first part is indeed a
very serious declaration from the Council of the League, representing as it does so many sovereign States in the world. I am not going to say, what has been said by some propagandists in favour of my point of view, that the allegations presented to the Mixed Commission were all proved. I think a mistake has been made by some people in regarding those allegations as if they had ultimately become the findings and the declarations of the Commission. It is worth while having this Debate therefore were it only to clear up that single point.
Allegations about bribery and corruption of Governments were floating about the whole of Europe for some time, and the temporary Mixed Commission appointed by the League was called into being to inquire into them and, in order to do so, asked that they should be put down in writing. It is more than likely that the officials of the Commission collected those allegations and reduced them to writing. When the Commission came to consider them, they were divided in their views, and they issued a majority and a minority report: but both came to the conclusion that there was a great deal of truth behind every one of those charges. If those charges have the slightest foundation in fact—and I believe we can prove that they have some foundation—it does not matter who sits on the Disarmament Conference, or what declarations Governments may make in their official capacity in favour of disarmament, so long as armaments are made for private profit no disarmament conference of any kind can have much hope of success. This issue, therefore, is one of the most serious confronting the countries of Europe to-day. It is so important that the lives of millions of people, in Europe in particular, may depend upon what is done with this problem of the private manufacture of arms. The general allegations therefore are that armament firms have attempted to bribe Government officials both at home and abroad—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: rose—

Mr. DAVIES: I am always willing to give way to any hon. Member, but I must not be interrupted every few minutes. The statement goes on to say that armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programmes of various countries in
order to s[...]mulate armament expenditure, that armament firms have sought to influence public [...]inion through the control of newspapers in their own and in foreign countries; that they have organised international armament rings through which the armament race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another, and that armament firms have organised international armament trusts which have increased the price of armaments sold to Governments.
I shall soon be told that my duty is to come back to our own country and handle the problem so far as it affects our own situation at home. I propose, therefore, to deal with that aspect of the question for a moment. Let me add in fairness to our own country that I think that, in so far as these general allegations are concerned, it is understood by everybody who has studied the question without bias that the charges made may be said to apply less to our own country than to some other countries in Europe. It ought to be added, however, in that connection, that this does not imply that some of these things may not be true of our own country. I ought to add something else, that in the very nature of the case, all these doubtful practices can ensue here at home. Do not let us be critical of that men who sell these deadly weapons, because once you begin to manufacture an article for private gain you must stand the consequences of selling that article for the one specific purpose for which that firm is established, and that is, for private personal profit. Once you accept that truth the men who represent these firms either in China or Japan, in France or in Italy, or in the Balkans or elsewhere, do their level best to sell their goods, and they will sell poison gas with as much enthusiasm as they would a box of biscuits. We have therefore to understand that that is how the business is conducted.
Some hon. Gentlemen in this House will say that that is the ordinary and proper way of conducting business. I would say in answer to that, that I am personally opposed to the manufacture of anything that can destroy human life. I object profoundly to deadly weapons being manufactured merely in order to fill the pockets of a few individuals in our own country. It is upon that basis that I am proceeding to argue my case. We can-
not, therefore, by the very nature of the case be free here at home from some of the criticisms which are made in connection with the private manufacture of arms. Let me take one case. Some hon. Members have studied the problem very much more than I have, and I admit at once that this sphere of study is a little outside my ordinary ken. I have, however, personally come across statements which prove the contention that our own manufacturers of armaments are not free from guilt in connection with these charges. There is one classical illustration known to those who have studied this issue closely. There is the case which occurred in 1908 of the manager of the Coventry Ordnance Works, whose factory was equipped for the manufacture of naval guns. He succeeded in persuading our own Admiralty that Germany was accelerating the building of her dreadnoughts. The result was that his firm induced our Government to proceed to build dreadnoughts more rapidly here. He pitted Germany against our own Admiralty and secured some substantial orders as a result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cheer that statement. I should like to know what the widows and orphans of men who fell in the Great War would say to those cheers.
Under the present system of production our own private manufacturers fall into the same category as everybody else. It is known that our own makers of these weapons have pitted China against Japan. They inflamed the passion of one country against another; and I do not think that I do them an injustice when I say that they would as soon sell their goods to the comitadjis in the Balkans as they would to the Fascists in Vienna, or the Communists in Paris. It does not matter to them who buy their goods. All that concerns them is that they can sell for a profit, and we on these benches object to that process and to those types of commercial transactions.
The gentleman from the Coventry ordinance factory was a very clever commercial traveller. He was indeed something more than that. He secured admission into the Cabinet of the day. Just imagine an ordinary commercial traveller, pushing his wares, being admitted to a meeting of the British Cabinet at Downing Street, the centre of the greatest
Empire in the world. That ordinary commercial traveller not only was admitted into the Cabinet, but he persuaded that Cabinet that it was time they woke up. Let me pursue the point a stage further. The strange thing about that is that the Cabinet had obviously no confidence in their own paid officers and advisers; they had greater confidence in an ordinary traveller sent to them by a private firm. If there is one case above all which indicates that some of the allegations against the private manufacture of arms are well founded even in this country, this case, in my view, is a good one. It supports that contention. These gun makers draw no distinction at all between the requirements of our own country and that of the foreigner. As a matter of fact, if they could get a better price for their goods in Germany or in France, they would not care what was necessary at home by way of arms; they would sell to the highest bidder, anywhere. Consequently we are opposed to that system of carrying on this traffic.
I do not think that I shall be treading on very dangerous ground when I say that this issue is becoming very much more important as the years go by. We are not talking to-day only about the private manufacture of battleships, guns and aircraft. Let me come a little nearer home. The next war, as is commonly understood by all, will not be fought on the high seas or on the battlefields. It will be carried on in the main by the scientific inventions of the chemists; and I venture to forecast that, under the present system, the Imperial Chemical Industries, who will manufacture most of the poison gas probably for the whole of Europe, will sell that poison to our own Government, to the French Government and to the German Government all at the same time. This firm will probably supply poison gas to all the combatants in the next war irrespective of their nationality. If it gives them a decent profit they will on top of all that manufacture gas masks for the population to prevent them from being poisoned, and they will profit by that process as well. That is not an overdrawn picture at all. That method of conducting business is indeed a reprehensible one.
I shall be told on that score at once that the State could not produce these
commodities as effectively as private trade. I do not think, ii the light of the experience of the late War and of what transpired in the Ministry of Munitions, that the argument' that the private manufacturer is more clever and alert than the State will ever hold good again. I have figures to show what State factories did during the late War. When hon. Members complain that we are trying to abolish private enterprise in the manufacture of arms they have to remember that during that war they were nearly all wiped out by the establishment of State factories. It was then found by the State that, in its greatest extremity of all, the private manufacture of arms was not up to requirements in our own country. If hon. Members laugh at that, let me give them the facts. The State factories during the last War produced the following percentages of munitions of war. Empty shells, 28 per cent.; filled shells, 86 per cent.; rifles, 50 per cent.; small arms ammunition, 25 per cent.; trench mortars, 4 per cent.; trench mortars ammunition, filled, 28 per cent.; high explosives, 42 per cent.; and propellants 47 per cent. Therefore, there can be no argument that the State cannot do the job.
I can assure hon. Members that I am not arguing in moving my Motion that the manufacture of armaments ought to be taken up by the State merely because I am a Socialist. I want the State to take over the manufacture of armaments—I hope the House will consider that I am absolutely sincere on this point—because I do not want the State to be influenced in its diplomatic relationships by the urgings and persuadings of private manufacturers. I want the amount of munitions of war, of poison gas, of aircraft, guns and bayonets produced in our own land to have some relationship to the diplomacy of the Government of the day. Let me put it this way. If the Government of this country are pursuing a peace policy at Geneva—I think I am right in saying that its last Note to the Disarmament Conference was an attempt in that direction—there is neither rhyme nor reason why the people of this country should at the same time allow groups of men to form themselves into private companies to manufacture arms on their own account and to undermine our diplomacy by selling them sometimes to nations who may be our enemies next year or the year after.
Let me show how ridiculous the situation is from time to time. I am sure that I am right, in saying that there were men employed in the engineering firms of this country from 1910 to 1913 who moulded with their own hands the huge guns that they captured later on from their enemies. I think I am right in saying too that there were men who were blown to their doom by the very guns that they had themselves machined in the workshops of this country. That sort of transaction is offensive to the best instincts in our nature, and I object to this method of carrying on business. I shall be told that if we ourselves do not carry on this business other nationals will do it and will sell these [...]ns abroad. Let me a[...]yse that position. The argument is that, if we do not produce these arms in Great Britain to sell to China, Japan, the Balkans, France or Germany, some other country may do so. Let me say quite frankly that I am willing to pay the price of losing such business. I feel sure that the vast majority of the people of this country would be willing to say that they would prefer to have nothing at all to do, either through the State or through private manufacture, with a business which is responsible for so much destruction. I am afraid indeed that this nefarious traffic is responsible in part for the terrible calamity that has recently befallen the beautiful city of Vienna. Therefore our people would I feel sure be willing to pay the price of not having anything to do with the doubtful transaction of selling arms abroad.
One hon. Member asked the President of the Board of Trade to-day the value of arms we exported, and the reply was that we export about £3,000,000 worth a year. That may be a large or it may be a small figure according to the way we look at the problem, but one thing is certain and that is that we as a nation ought to set an example to others. I have travelled a great deal in the last few years, and whoever I have consulted on international affairs I am glad to say that they all agree that this nation is still a powerful influence in the councils of the world. There is no doubt about that, but the question always arises whether that influence is wielded for good or otherwise. Without going into that delicate issue let me say
that if this nation, which stands so high in the councils of Europe, declare that this infernal traffic should end within our own shores, it would then have clean hands to ask other nations to follow suit. There is no reason why we should not do that. We were first in the field with some of the most humanitarian laws that were ever passed. We were first in factory laws, and we are now, in spite of my criticisms on occasions, the best nation in the world for social services. We have many things that we can teach the world. We have a right to feel proud of our institutions in spite of many criticisms; but although we may be the best in many respects it does not follow that we cannot do better. The reason why some of us are here is not that we think we are not better than other nations but because we believe in our [...]ts that what we are doing now can [...] improved upon. It would indeed be [...] great improvement in the life of this great country if this business of the pri[...] manu[...]acture of arms were banished once and for all from our land.
Let me now turn to one criticism of the Government's recent action. On the proposal for abolishing the private manufacture of arms our Government is not by any means the leader in Europe. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not claim to know as much about the technicalities of this subject as other hon. Members, but, so far as I understand it, the last Note that His Majesty's Government sent to the Disarmament Conference was criticised because it leaned too much in favour of Germany. Criticism has been made in some very authoritative quarters that it would have gone a long way towards modifying French opinion if we had agreed with the French on the abolition of the private manufacture of armaments. The French have always declared that they stand definitely for the abolition of the private manufacture of arms. It is said that we could have secured a great deal more agreement for our disarmament proposals on the part of France if we had put in our recent Note to Geneva a point in favour of the abolition of the private manufacture of arms. Be that as it may, the case that I am making out is that the private manufacture of arms is open to several objections inherent in the case itself.
There is considerable apprehension among the people of this country that our arms factories here have been rather too busy lately. Some hon. Members might like to see them busier still, but I would prefer to see other industries improving instead. I would prefer to see the coal and textile trades improving. I would like to see the peaceful factories of Lancashire humming once again. I definitely dislike the notion that chairmen are able to stand up at the annual meetings of private firms and say, as one gentleman said recently, that "the shipyards both at Barrow and Newcastle are being maintained in the highest state of efficiency and, despite the condition of the industry as a whole, we have at present on order nine warships of various types."

Mr. PEARSON: Are they foreign [...] ships?

Mr. DAVIES: They may on may not be Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentlemen that our own shipyards in the past have built a large number of bat[...]eships for foreign Governments, and it may interest him to know too that it is on record that some of those very ships in wartime have tried to sink some of our own ships. Of course, hon. Gentlemen would regard that as business, I suppose. I do not.
I do not want to weary the House, but I must say a few words about the Amendment supported by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). His Amendment, in fact, is nothing but a reply to some of the arguments which he thought I would put forward. Welshmen think alike on occasions, but not too often, I hope. The Amendment tells us that the number of employés of the State would be increased if the private manufacture of arms were abolished in this country. I am not sure about that. If the Disarmament Conference succeeds at Geneva, I should imagine that the natural consequence will be that the number of persons employed in the manufacture of arms in this country and in the world would decline. Then we are told in the Amendment something like this: You had better look out if all the munitions required by this country are to be manufactured under State control. Every Member of Parliament then will demand that a munition factory shall
be established in his own constituency. I am not sure if that is right, because the people of Croydon are so genteel that they would not have a munition factory in that district even to produce materials to defend their own country. They do not like ugly factories there; they like them to be situated somewhere else. Then we are told that the representatives of dockyard towns would be pestering Government Departments unduly.

Viscountess ASTOR: Not half as much as private enterprise does.

Mr. DAVIES: There is probably a point to be made on that score, but however insistent a Member of Parliament may be for his constituents who are employed by the State, I am sure that, by comparison, their efforts would be of very little avail when you compare the pressure brought upon Governments in connection with Import Duties. The tariffists in this country have been pestering Government Departments since 1931 to an extent which has almost brought shame to the public life of this country. I say, therefore, that that point will not avail the hon. Gentleman when he is moving his Amendment. After all, what are the points which are raised by Members of Parliament representing dockyard towns? The points which are raised continually in this House by those Members have more to do with the conditions under which the men are employed than in asking for more contracts for them. In any case, their action does not seem to have succeeded very well, because the private firms seem to get away with it nearly every time, and private firms are given contracts when it is known, on occasion, that the State factories can do the work better.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to deal with this point before he sat down, but I am anxious to know whether he desires merely to prohibit the manufacture and sale of these arms by private manufacturers and to transfer the foreign trade to the State factories, or to prohibit all foreign trade in arms.

Mr. DAVIES: To be frank, so far as I am personally concerned, I would not admit to the State, if it took over the work, the right to sell any of those
weapons to foreign countries. I think that I made that clear. I do not want to dwell unduly on this very serious and interesting subject. There is so much matter in connection with it, that I feel sure we shall have a very good discussion on the Motion. I might, therefore, be allowed to conclude. It is just 10 years ago that I won first place in the Ballot before my success on this occasion. It fell to my lot then to move a very serious Motion in this House. It was a Motion in favour of the establishment of widows' pensions, and I went into the Lobby accompanied by a very small group. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who, I think, was the only Conservative Member of the House then who voted in favour of my Motion.
In spite of the fact that my Motion in favour of widows' pensions 10 years ago was defeated ignominiously by a huge majority, I lived long enough to see the very people who treated it with scorn and contempt translating my ideas later into the law of the land. I do not know that any Member of this House who was here then will ever regret giving a widow a pension, and there is never a man anywhere in this land who would be bold enough now to say that he would abolish widows' pensions. I am hopeful, therefore, in spite of what may happen to my Motion to-day. I have been in this House for 12 years, having been re-elected six times consecutively. I am hoping to see another Parliament—in fact, more than one—when reactionary Members, like the hon. Member for South Croydon, may not have as much influence as they possess to-day, and I am hopeful too that what I ultimately experienced with my first Motion may eventuate in connection with this one also.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. MITCHESON: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House would deplore a system which would increase the number of employés of the State having a vested interest in the increase in the production of instruments of war and would increase the number of Members of Parliament engaged in pressing the defence department to provide jobs for their constituents, and which would further deprive large numbers of work-
people of employment in the manufacture of goods for export, and would lead inevitably to the establishment of munition factories in many countries which have none at present.
I rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and to propose the Amendment, although, no doubt, with the extraordinary brotherly love which exists between Welshmen, the hon. Member had not noticed that I and not the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) was the proposer of the Amendment. May I say at once that, while paying tribute to the hon. Member's sincerity, his ability and love of debate, I do think the Motion he has proposed shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of the fact that, were it carried by this House, it would only have the effect, particularly in view of the explanation given to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), of furthering the dangers of strife between nations which I give him credit for desiring to avoid, no more and no less than any other Member of this House. While I am in favour of democratic government as a whole, it has its weaknesses, and one of those weaknesses is that it enables irresponsible utterances to go forward with all that backing which a responsible address like Westminster might imply. With the aid of the world's Press, which seeks to publish, and often exaggerates, the sensational rather than the conventional, it is quite possible that the purport of the hon. Gentleman's Motion might have an effect abroad which would prove very harmful, and very disadvantageous to this country.
The gist, of the hon. Gentleman's Motion is that the private manufacture of armaments in this country should be prohibited. Well, we have reduced our Navy as a gesture, hoping others would follow. We have reduced our Army as another gesture, still hoping. We have kept an inadequate Air Force, again hoping; and my hon. Friend would now suggest that we stop the private manufacture of armaments, still hoping that this time the world will say, "What a nice little country! What a very nice people! They do not want to protect themselves. They do not want to resist attacks. They do not want to support their Allies. We need not fear anything from them." What could be the only result? Could we retain and increase the
respect that the world has for us? Could we command the peace of the world? Could we hold in check those who would cross swords with us? Emphatically and definitely, No. On the contrary, we should only invite the certainty of attack, and our ultimate defeat and degradation. I am, in fact, surprised that my hon. Friend now limits himself to the desire to prevent the private manufacture of armaments. Why not go the whole hog? I wonder why he does not logically develop his proposal and ask, for instance, that we should give up all our possessions. Why not give up our standards of life which, while admittedly not perfect, I agree with my hon. Friend are at any rate the highest the world has yet known? Why does he not demand that we should give up those things which most of us are so proud to have achieved in case they may create envy, covetousness, jealousy in the minds of other countries not so far advanced as ourselves?
No doubt one way of obtaining peace would be to cast away all such possessions as may be the envy of others and slink into obscurity retaining nothing which would make us even noticeable. Is that what my hon. Friend wants? By the same principle why does he not advocate the entire removal of the police force, the police courts, the judges and the magistrates and the doing away with prisons? If he is satisfied that the private manufacture of armaments is antagonising other countries, does he not think in the same strain that our prisons, police courts, judges and magistrates may be antagonising the criminal members of our community? Again, I assume that, logical as he would be, my hon. Friend never locks the doors or the windows of his own house at night in case this may antagonise some constituent of his with burglarious intentions.
My hon. Friend, of course, ignores the fact that aims are just as necessary for defence as they are for attack. Does he appreciate that the one country which has since the War advertised itself above all others as the great moralist and peace lover has only preached these doctrines for the consumption of other countries and not at all for itself? These "love thy neighbour" and "peace at any
price" doctrines forced on others by that country are probably more responsible than anything else for the chaotic state of affairs throughout Europe to-day. Thank God the standard of morals in this country is not only talked of but believed in and lived up to by the great majority. The standard is the same for ourselves as it is for other people.
I noticed that my hon. Friend shifted from armaments to arms. The Motion refers to armaments and I ask: Who is to judge what are armaments? Surely every form of machinery is a form of armaments. Certainly every motor vehicle must be considered armament. The chemicals used in the production of dyes are also the most powerful explosives. How will you distinguish between these materials when used in industry and when used in warfare? Were there any greater armaments in the last War than spades and barbed wire? What about glycerine? One of the most important of warfare commodities, and yet used to an enormous extent medicinally, commercially and in other innocent fashions. My hon. Friend must logically desire to close down the plant of the great Unilever and other manufacturers of glycerine, thereby robbing thousands of people of their employment and the whole country of a very necessary commodity.
What about cotton? Surely it is one of the great important necessities in armaments. Would my hon. Friend desire to hit Lancashire more than it is already being hit by putting a check even on its present production? It is extraordinary to me that many of those who claim to be the real champions and protagonists of the interests of the working-classes should be so ready to propose measures which would rob them of employment and should so rarely bring forward any sound constructive suggestions which would be of real service to those for whom they claim to be fighting. In the recent upheaval in France great quantities of marbles were scattered broadcast and formed a very successful armament and defence against cavalry charges. Will my hon. Friend rob the children of their marbles? Because all of this may be classed as armaments.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Better rob them of their marbles than of their fathers.

Mr. MITCHESON: I did not understand that. Are the schools in my hon.
Friend's constituency to be told that marbles and other armaments are prohibited strictly? If so, when he went to his constituency would they come and say, "Hail, hail—but it would not be Ale, ale—our great benefactor, who robbed our children of the right to play marbles in the gutter"? There have been cases where pepper has proved a very successful weapon of attack as well as of defence. Pepper. Armaments. Bang goes my hon. Friend's pepper pot, and, again, it is historical that during the upheaval in Italy just after the War the most successful armament used by Mussolini's men was castor oil. It was castor oil that gave the loyalists their victory. It was castor oil that gave their enemies time to collect their senses. If my hon. Friend dares to interfere with the supply of castor oil he may make friends of a few children but their mothers will he after him and that is the last thing I am sure that he desires. One could go on enumerating those instances indefinitely, but surely even my hon. Friend will be satisfied as to the impossibility of defining the materials and manufactures which he desires to prohibit in the cause of self-protection, and so his Motion falls to the ground.
During the last week-end I was passing a village green on which was an enormous field gun, a relic of the War. A number of children were playing round about and on this gun. One little mite had climbed on to the gun and was sitting over the mouth with the heels of its little shoes holding on to the inside. Surely this to-day is a harmless toy and not a terrible weapon. This gun was giving pleasure and entertainment and mothers were happy in the fact that their children were playing round and in this terrible gun. It is not the gun, it is not the armaments; it is the mind behind the gun and the mind behind the armaments that matter. All the armaments in the world will serve no antagonistic purpose if there is not an antagonistic mind behind them.
Again, we must remember that armaments are not only required for attack but are equally necessary for defence. May I ask my hon. Friend what would be his position—and he has answered this before I ask him—what would be his position if some country which it was our duty, our right or even our necessity to protect were attacked by some other coun-
try and if that other country had free supply and access to every kind of materials supplied by its allies? Would he still desire that we should not support our ally by the manufacture and supply, privately or otherwise, of every form of armament necessary for the protection of our friends? If it were thought by other countries that we would act otherwise, believe me this country would very soon have lost the last of its friends. Again, it is surely better that private manufacturers should be the suppliers in such a case, so that the Government, as a Government, is not forced into open partisanship.
Perhaps some of my hon. Friends have thought of some scheme of discrimination whereby you could mark the pepper for war and the pepper for domestic use and that would give an opportunity to put a few more thousand inspectors on the job. Perhaps you know the story of the poor old decrepit man who was wandering along a dark and dismal road and saying, "Help, help." A great big burly fellow comes up and says, "What is the matter?" He replies, "That man going along has stolen my tie pin." He says, "Why do you not run after him?" "No," says the old man, "I cannot run because I am too old." "Cannot you shout for help louder than that?" "No," he replies, "My voice is done." "Then," says the other, "Here goes for your blinking watch!" No intelligent person desires war but every intelligent person will desire to prepare himself against attack. It is, however, well to remind ourselves that our very bodies are battlefields on which war is waged continuously between the germs of health and the germs of disease. It is the strong army of health germs that keeps the bad germs at bay, and there can be no compromise in this fight. The moment we as individuals are born we are fighting death, until our strength gives way to greater power.
If we want peace we must be strong enough to demand peace. There are many who believe that if this country had taken a firmer and more open hand in the early part of 1914, and had disclosed its intention to Germany in certain eventualities, the Great War might not have taken place. Let us remember that we are still the greatest nation in the world. We have achieved more than any
other country. Even if we have not yet reached the ideal, we have a higher standard of living than any other people. Obviously and sensibly we must be the envy of many other countries, but we are obligated not only to ourselves but to humanity to keep up and continue to lift up our standard of living and morality and integrity and civilisation. We have a duty not only to ourselves, but to the world and to posterity, to create and keep intact such forces and such means as would give the ability not only to retain the position that we have gained, but if necessary to lead other nations to march on with us in our ambition to raise still further the standard of the lives of the people. I appeal for such a majority in favour of the Amendment as will leave no doubt in the minds of others as to the self-respect of our country, and her will to protect the interests of herself and of those allied with her.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I hope that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) will not leave the Chamber at this moment, because I want to make one or two comments on his speech. He did not supply us with very much information in support of his wild and whirling words. If his allegations are true, no disarmament convention can succeed. He did not give any details about the allegations, and he did not establish his proposition, and yet that was an important part of the case that he sought to set up. At one stage I tried to intervene in order to ask him a question. For some reason he would not give way, though I never fail to give way to him. He said that armament firms have sought to bribe Government officials at home and abroad. I wanted to ask him whether "at home" meant in this country, or whether it referred to the "at home" of foreign armament firms. I do not believe his statement if it refers to "at home" in this country.
The hon. Member based his case on the fact that those who make armaments privately are making them for private gain. Those who work at Woolwich Arsenal are making armaments for private gain. What is the difference between Arsenal wages and the remuneration of any other person. They may differ in amount, but they do not differ
in principle. Those who have them usually spend them exactly as they think fit. Why bring in this element of prejudice? It is pure prejudice. It would not have been brought in unless it was pure prejudice. After all, the aggregate sums paid in wages for the manufacture of armaments must be at least eight times as great as anything paid in profit. Therefore, the profit gained in wages is something very much greater than the profit gained in dividends.
The hon. Member mentioned the case of the Coventry Ordnance Company in the year 1908. He ridiculed the idea that a commercial traveller should ever obtain access to a Cabinet. I know a co-operative official who not only got access as a visitor, but was the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was on the other side of the table from the traveller. But what about the Coventry Ordnance Company? I believe it does not exist now, as a separate entity at any rate. Did that traveller tell the British Cabinet anything that was un-true? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Did he not establish what was very well established 12 months later, when Mr. McKenna, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was responsible for a very much larger shipbuilding programme? What is the history of the events? Lord Cawdor, the First Lord of the Admiralty in the Conservative Government of 1905, proposed a programme of four capital ships per annum. He said that if that programme was persisted in the risk of danger to this country was reduced to a minimum. In 1906 a Government of another colour took office. In the first year they cut out two ships from that programme. In the second year they cut out another, and in the third year they cut out another.
Protests were made, not by officials of armament companies, but by well-informed people who had no interests of a private nature whatever in the production of armaments, that Germany, basing herself on her Naval Law of 1900, with its well-known preamble, was deliberately seizing the opportunity when we were reducing our rate of construction, to accelerate her own rate of construction. It was because of that accelerated rate of construction that in 1909 a famous by-election in Croydon was fought on the issue "We want eight and we won't wait." The people of Croydon
have no interests in armaments directly. Though there are 300 factories there, none of them is in any direct sense an armament factory. What is the use of saying that the increased programe of naval shipbuilding in 1909 was due to the fact that some official in Coventry succeeded in humbugging the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who is much too competent to be humbugged by a commercial traveller from Coventry.

Viscountess ASTOR: Mr. McKenna, not Mr. Churchill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Member for Epping was a member of the Cabinet, and was responsible for carrying on a steady and enhanced programme on these lines.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Did he not also humbug Mr. Balfour?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not know whether he humbugged Mr. Balfour or not. Mr. Balfour was not Prime Minister of this country at the time. He was the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. FOOT: Was it not repeated from both sides of the House at that time that Germany was accelerating her naval programme so that by 1912 she would have, not nine ships as announced, but 17? Is it not a fact that in 1912 it was found that that was entirely wrong, and that Germany had only nine?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It may have been the case that Mr. Mulliner overstated the facts. There may have been a measure of mistake, but nothing alters the fact that in substance what was happening in Germany between 1906 and 1908 was something very serious to the safety of this country. It was the realisation that those things had happened that induced the Liberal Government, which during the years 1910 to 1914 was maintained in office very largely by numbers of the Socialist party—

HON. MEMBERS: No, by the Nationalists.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Socialist party could have turned the Government out. I have rather a good memory, so allow me to state the facts. The election of 1910 resulted in the return of 273 Conservatives, 273 Liberals, 44 members of the Labour party, and the balance were Irish Nationalists. The Nationalists com
bined with the Liberals were in a position to give the Liberal Government a slight majority over Socialists and Conservatives combined. Nevertheless there was a substantial period when the Nationalist party had not been fully squared, when their allegiance was uncertain, and the co-operation of the Socialists with the Conservatives on a selected issue could have put that Government out. That is the truth. Therefore the Socialist party was responsible for permitting the continued existence of a Government which, quite rightly in my judgment, entered on the production of armaments on a very large scale; and whatever Mr. Mulliner and the Coventry Ordnance Company may have said or done—what he said in the Cabinet we do not know—in the main there is no evidence whatever of any corruption, no evidence that the Liberal Government of 1908 were corrupted by the commercial traveller from Coventry. There are certain right hon. Gentlemen in the House who were members of that Cabinet, and if they were corrupted they would be able to inform us as to how it was done.
Our Amendment does suggest that the vested interests of State employés will be substantially increased if the private manufacture of armaments is prohibited. Is it not notorious that what are known as dockyard Members are always trying to get contracts for their constituencies to an extent far in excess of any pressure brought to bear on this House by private contractors?

Viscountess ASTOR: That is not true.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have studied the public life of this country and the proceedings of this House over a period very much longer than the Noble Lady has done. The activities of the dockyard Members are notorious. I was a member of an Economy Committee, and a great friend of mine was also a member of it. We worked in separate compartments, and the compartment that he was in did not deal with shipyards. When the facts came out he was naturally very angry. I did not blame him, because his constituents were bringing great pressure to bear on him. I remember an hon. Member for Pembroke, Sir Charles Price. I remember the difficulty he found himself in when it was decided more or less to close Pembroke Dockyard. Then we had
all the troubles about Rosyth when the War was over. Various Members of Parliament from that district were constantly bringing pressure to bear for the Government to continue in existence on a large scale a naval base which was unnecessary at that time on such a large scale.
What is the use of pretending that dockyard Members and arsenal constituency Members are not continually pressed to see that large contracts are given to their constituencies? We all know that that is true. I remember that when the War broke out, that delightful person the late Mr. Will Crooks, whom we all liked so much, went to his constituency on the very day that the War started, and in talking to one of his supporters, an Arsenal worker, said: "This is a terrible business, this Great War." The man replied, "I don't know; I have just bought a piano on the hire-purchase system." That story happens to be literally true, and it shows the curious mentality you may get in the minds of those employed in State arsenals. There have been cases in which employés of arsenal companies or persons indirectly hired by them, have engaged in undesirable activities.
I well remember the great difficulties experienced by Lord Bridgeman and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) in 1927 at the Naval Disarmament Conference at Geneva. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not actually a delegate, to that Conference, but, as Foreign Secretary, he had a general responsibility. In those negotiations the prime problem with which our representatives had to deal was presented by the United States delegation. That delegation, judging by what happened afterwards, was apparently saying one thing across the council table, and then arranging that the Press should say a different thing for consumption in the United States. The activities of Mr. Shearer were not, I agree, very creditable but he was not an inhabitant of this country. He was an inhabitant of the United States, and we are now discussing what should be done in this country. But what happened in 1927.. Here were our delegates working under appalling difficulties, not because they were being dishonest, not because there was any intrigue affecting them, but because intrigue
was affecting people at the other side of the table. The reason the Conference failed was because of the American delegation and yet you had people in this House backing up the point of view of the Americans against our own Government.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not what happened at that very Conference point to the danger of private enterprise in the manufacture of armaments? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if we got an international agreement against the private manufacture of arms, it would stop just the sort of thing which happened at Geneva on that occasion?

Mr. WILLIAMS: What it does show I think is the undesirability of negotiating with the United States Government when you do not know who you have on the other side of the table.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. Gentleman think that one of the greatest ways of securing a universal world peace would be for the British Empire and the United States to work together; and if so, should he not be a little more careful in the statements which he makes about America?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I think it would be a splendid thing if the League of Nations would give us a mandate for the United States, but, apart from that, I do not think we have much to learn from the other side of the Atlantic. Certainly we have not much to learn so far as self-discipline is concerned. This matter has been under examination by a Committee of the League of Nations which published a report on 3rd June last. That document sets forth the views expressed on the one side by the Governments of Denmark, France, Poland and Spain, standing for the principle that the private manufacture of arms should be abolished, and the views expressed on the other side by this country, Belgium. Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. On behalf of those countries cogent reasons are set forth why the proposal to abolish the private manufacture of arms is open to grave question.
Some time ago the Government of this country wanted to make one of those gestures to which reference has already been made, and in view of the conflict which had developed between Japan and China it was decided to prohibit, under
powers of licensing, the export of arms from this country to those two countries then in a state of semi-war. That was intended as a gesture to the other countries. It is interesting to note that the four countries which apparently do not desire the private manufacture of arms to continue did not follow that example. They had the chance then to take administrative action to prevent the export of privately-manufactured arms but they did not take that chance. As they did not take it, I am not unduly impressed by the views of the Governments of Denmark, France, Poland and Spain on this subject. If people believe in certain things and go to international conferences and express that belief, then when the chance comes to give effect to their declarations, why should they not take that chance? Quite frankly I doubt the sincerity of a great many declarations made by Governments at international conferences. I think if we were a little more candid in our international relationships at times—not necessarily always in public—we should make more progress in the direction of peace than we have made.
Let me examine briefly the question of trading in arms. The Mover of this Motion sought to horrify us by suggesting that certain of our men in the Great War were killed by guns which they themselves had made. I think on balance that is improbable but assuming it to be true, it would still be true even if the hon. Member's Motion were adopted. I agree that he made a declaration to the effect that if his Motion were adopted and given effect to, he would desire to see the prohibition of the export of arms made in State arsenals. But you might have obligations to other countries and in the course of the fulfilment of those obligations those other countries might accumulate stores of arms which at a later stage might be used against us. Even taking the worst conceivable case, the only guns I think that could have been used against us in the War were those supplied to Turkey and if Turkey had not bought those guns here they would have bought them somewhere else. The guns would have been bought by them in any event. Therefore, that argument of the hon. Member which at first seems dreadful is after all an argument of prejudice and not an argument of intellectual merit, and we have to judge these arguments on
their intellectual merit and not on prejudice.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in answer to a question by me has furnished a statistical statement showing the magnitude of the trade in the export of arms. Unfortunately, in drafting my question I omitted aeroplanes, and the other armaments of the air. In certain circumstances every aeroplane can be used as a bomber. Ordinary aeroplanes may be rather primitive for the purpose, but they are all potential bombers and all aeroplanes must be regarded as arms. Leaving out aeroplanes, the export of which I think represents about £2,000,000 a year, the statement shows that in the last 10 years we sold on an average about £2,200,000 worth a year of arms and munitions including vessels of war to Empire countries, and a little less than that to foreign countries. So far as the exports to Empire countries are concerned, they are, in substance, exports to the Governments of those countries, and that is a trade which it seems ought to continue so long as we regard the British Empire as a political unit.
To-day, we have developed the most amazing constitution in the world, but nevertheless this is one Empire. Although some people fondly imagine that one part of the Empire can be at war while another part is at peace, I think in practice events would render that idea impossible. We must regard the Empire as a unit for purposes of defence. That does not mean to say that we have a common Army, Navy and Air Force, but ultimately the Empire must be regarded as a unit for these purposes, and therefore the export of arms from this country by private firms to Empire Governments does not raise the issue dealt with by the hon. Member opposite. What of the £2,100,000 worth which on the average is exported annually to foreign countries? The bulk goes to countries which, if they did not buy here, would have to buy elsewhere because they have not the requisite factories within their own boundaries.
The Mover of this Motion read certain words from Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and was about to comment upon them when some of us protested that he ought to read the remainder of the Article. This docu-
ment was drawn up by human beings and is not necessarily inspired. It was the best they could do, but we are not compelled to accept everything in it as the final truth. I, for one, have always viewed the activities of Members for dockyard constituencies, and incidentally of Members who have belonged to the Services, as bringing far greater pressure to bear on this House than has ever been brought by anybody connected with the private manufacture of arms. But I would point out that Article 8 of the Covenant goes on to say:
Due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League who are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
We have to bear those people in mind. If we do not, ultimately they will start their own arsenals and we shall have scattered about the world more centres of armament manufacture than exist to-day. Hon. Members who think that that is promoting peace may be right but I think they are wrong. I never could understand why the Socialists should call themselves the party of peace. The most militarist-minded people in the world to-day are those who held that gigantic parade of troops and tanks and so forth in Moscow recently. There is no more militarist minded country in the world at present than Soviet Russia. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Germany."] I think Russia is even more militarist than Germany. The Germans at the moment have their internal political troubles. The other people have dealt with all their political troubles. They have wiped them out.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is that a reason for allowing arms to be exported to Soviet Russia?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am dealing at the moment with the Socialist mentality in these matters. I will come to the Liberal mentality in a moment. Whoever is to blame at the present time, there is a lot of Socialist war going on in Europe. In Austria and in France we find the Socialists "scrapping" with the best of them—not talking peace but talking war and actually shedding blood. It may be said that they are doing it in their own defence. Others will say that they are doing it for offence. But there is not
the faintest indication that the Socialist is a peaceably-minded person—certainly it could not be said of the Socialists who pulled young girls off their bicycles on 1st May, 1926? Now what about the peaceably minded people who sit on the other side of the Gangway opposite? When the War started on 4th August, 1914, an article was published in a newspaper. It appeared on the very date, 4th August, but it had been written before war started, and it contained the following passage:
If we remained neutral we should be, from the commercial point of view, in precisely the same position as the United States. We should be able to trade with all the belligerents (so far as the war allows of trade with them).
The only limitation imposed by The Hague Convention is that governments of neutrals must not sell armaments. The article went on to say that:
We should keep our expenditure down; we should keep out of debt, and we should have healthy finances.
There was a real good old "boost." Let the others "scrap" and let us sell everything to them that we are allowed to sell. Well, that article appeared in the "Daily News," the only Liberal organ left that is published in London with the exception of its evening child, "The Star." I hesitate to mention "The Star" because I did so at 20 minutes past 11 o'clock the other night and I had a leading article yesterday. I think it was Disraeli who said, "I do not care what they say about me so long as they say something." To-morrow I shall hopefully buy the "News-Chronicle." It does not do newspapers any harm to be criticised, because they spend all their time criticising everybody else. As I say, we have the party opposite who, judging by the company they keep, are a militarist party, and we have the party on the other side of the Gangway who, judging by the company which they keep, believe in trading with belligerents. We are asked by them in the name of high morality to pass a Resolution which would have the effect of throwing about 25,000 of our workpeople out of work. That is the plain truth. I am not going to vote for 25,000 of our people being thrown out of work, and I hope nobody else will.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) had
something to say about the Liberal mentality, and I shall have something to say about the mentality of the hon. Member, but at least this claim can be made for the Liberal party at the present time, that we are the only party which can still claim to support private enterprise, and we resist alike Socialist propaganda from the Opposition Front Bench and Socialist legislation from the Government Front Bench. In spite of that, I believe that the arms industry is on an entirely different footing from other industries, and I want to support the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies). We all listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I do not think it had very much to do with the Motion before the House, but we all hope that the germs to which the hon. Member referred will in his case for many years continue a successful struggle. The main object of his speech was to show that it is very difficult to distinguish between armaments and materials that may be used for armaments. I agree that it is a difficult distinction, but I would refer the hon. Member to a paragraph in the French Memorandum to the committee on this question, which reads as follows:
The sole object is to reserve to the State that part of industrial production whereby a product undergoes the first transformation which renders it unfit for pacific purposes and destines it exclusively for military use.
Perhaps that will make a little clearer the aim of those who support the Motion. The hon. Member for South Croydon spoke about the pressure that is brought to bear by Members for dockyard constituencies. I do not know whether he was present at Question Time to-day, when a question was put as to the orders for warships given respectively to Barrow, the Clyde, and the Tyne. Hon. Members, only to-day at Question Time, were doing their best to bring pressure to bear on behalf of the private firms who are building warships, and doing all they could for their particular constituencies in that matter, so I submit to the House that there is absolutely nothing to choose in this matter between the Members for dockyard constituencies and the Members for private shipbuilding constituencies. Then the hon. Member for South Croydon referred to the fact that the bulk of our exports go to
countries which must buy elsewhere. I do not think that is quite correct. A number of our exports go to countries which at present buy elsewhere, but I think it is true to say that under the influence of the prevailing economic nationalism, those countries are more and more tending, even as things are at present, to set up their own armaments factories. Finally, the hon. Member referred to a quotation from the "Daily News" in 1914. If he will read the "News-Chronicle," as it is now, to-morrow, no doubt he will see that that newspaper has advanced since 1914, and I am only sorry that the same thing cannot be said of the hon. Member for South Croydon.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion that those who, in various publications, have attacked the private manufacture of armaments, have overstated their case and have represented the allegations brought before the League of Nations Commission in 1921 as if they were the findings of that commission. It is possible to meet arguments of that kind, but when all is said and done, making every possible allowance for over-statement, I still believe that a very powerful case can be made out against the private manufacture of armaments. In the first place, who are the people who are bringing the charges against this practice? They are not extremists or men of that kind. They are not, to adopt the elegant phrase first used, I think, by the Foreign Secretary, "bloody-minded pacifists." Many of them are citizens of this country of very high standing, whose opinions most people would be prepared to accept. May I remind the House of a very familiar quotation from Lord Welby, who was for many years Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and who before the War enjoyed, I believe, an almost world-wide reputation as an expert in financial matters? This is what he said in a speech in 1914:
We are in the hands of an organisation of crooks. They are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments, and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure and go on inventing scares to terrify the public and to terrify Ministers of the Crown.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member give me the date of that quotation? Was the speaker trying to pretend
that war was not likely to come that year? Was he suggesting that the threat of war was not serious?

Mr. FOOT: I do not know what the tenour of the whole speech was, but he was speaking about the rise in the Naval Estimates, which was due, as has been shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, very largely to the activities of Mr. Mulliner. If I may quote an authority whom perhaps the hon. Member for South Croydon will not challenge, that of Lord Cecil, who, after all, is more entitled to speak on questions of peace and disarmament than probably any other of His Majesty's subjects now living, Lord Cecil, in an article a few months ago, said:
We have not forgotten the scandalous trade whereby civil war was kept alive in China, and later Chinamen and Japanese were killed to swell the profits of the munitions makers of Europe. Nor are these spectacular events the worst part of the story. The plain truth is that in almost all the principal countries of the world we have great industrial and financial organisations whose prosperity depends on wars and rumours of war. They batten on the suspicions and enmities of mankind. I have very little doubt that the existence and activity of these industries have seriously retarded international disarmament.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: That is all opinion. Neither Lord Cecil nor the Mover of the Motion has given us any evidence. I want evidence, not the opinions of Lord Cecil.

Mr. FOOT: I am coming to that, if the hon. Member will allow me. I asked, in the first place, "Who are the people who bring the charges against this traffic?" and I am trying to point out that they are people whose opinion is entitled to respect. Perhaps the hon. Member will take the opinion of the League of Nations Union, which is not a very revolutionary body, but a perfectly respectable body, which only in December of last year passed this Resolution:
Recognising the evil effects arising from the private manufacture of armaments, the General Council believes that it would be contrary to the public interest that arms should be manufactured and sold for private profit.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not all the members of the Union or of its committees would agree to that.

Mr. FOOT: I quite appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not committed by that resolution, but it was the opinion at any rate of the majority of the General Council, and for that reason I think it is an opinion which is entitled to respect. Then there was the petition of the various ex-service men's organisations of Europe, presented in March, 1933, at the beginning of the Disarmament Conference. All the ex-service organisations, including the British Legion, were represented at that time. I believe the spokesman was Colonel John Brown, chairman of the British Legion, and the delegation, which went, 700 strong, to the Disarmament Conference, represented some 8,000,000 ex-service men. They also demanded the suppression of the private manufacture of arms and effective mutual international control. Finally, may I quote one admission which I think even the hon. Member for South Croydon may be ready to accept? It is an admission made by Lord Hailsham on the 8th December, 1932, speaking in the other place. I admit, that he did not accept all of the allegations made against the private manufacture of arms, but he did speak in favour of a system of control, and he went on to say:
We believe that that control would be adequate to remove the evil effects of the private manufacture of arms which are referred to in the Covenant.
There you have at any rate an implied admission that there are evil effects arising out of the traffic in arms. The point that I am trying to make is that you can bring a most formidable body of witnesses, some of them expert witnesses, speaking on this matter, who have formed the opinion that this is a dangerous traffic, which ought to be suppressed or very strictly controlled. Then the hon. Member for South Croydon said there was no evidence, or that none had been given by the Mover of the Motion. If you take the three great Powers alone, you find that in each case there has been an example of the sinister machinations of the armament manufacturers. There was the case of Mr. Mulliner, and, although the hon. Member made great play with Mr. Mulliner and with the record of the Liberal Government at that time, he did not deny, I think, that the information that was given at that time was false information and that it was shown by the march of events that Mr. Mulliner was
wrong. The hon. Member and the House can form their own opinions as to why the chairman of an armament firm wished to give information, which turned out to be false, to the Government in the hope of getting them to increase their armaments programme. Then there was the case during the War of the Briey Basin, in France, and there was also the case, to which the hon. Member himself referred, of Mr. Shearer. He admitted that Mr. Shearer's activities were not very creditable. The aim of this Motion is to try to put an end to the activities of Mr. Shearer and of everybody who engages in the same kind of activities. I submit that it is clear that you have here a conflict between the public interest and the interests of the armament firms, and I would remind the House of a speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council on the 10th November, 1932, when he ended with a peroration, which I think no Member of the House who heard it has ever forgotten, about the dangers of bombardment from the air, and said:
It is not a cheerful thought to the older men that … we are going to defile the earth from the air."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 637, Vol. 270.]
I have here a quotation from a recent speech by Mr. Sopwith, the chairman of Hawker Aircraft:
We have supplied more foreign countries with military aircraft, exclusive of training types, than any other British firm. I am pleased to put on record that the experience of those countries with Hawker aircraft is comparable to that of the Royal Air Force. We anticipate that our foreign markets will increase during the next 12 months. I attribute this satisfactory state of affairs at home and abroad to the excellent team work that obtains throughout our factories.
I would ask the House to contrast those two statements, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, who speaks about defiling the earth from the air, and that of the chairman of Hawker Aircraft, who speaks of "this satisfactory state of affairs" when he is anticipating an increase, "both at home and abroad," in the manufacture of the very instruments that are to carry out that defilement.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member suggest that the people who bought these aeroplanes bought them because of the team work of this firm? Was not the decision to buy made independently of Mr. Sopwith? The pur-
pose of the hon. Member's quotation is to show that he influenced people to buy more aeroplanes than they otherwise would.

Mr. FOOT: If the hon. Member had listened to what I said, instead of to parts of it, he would realise that I was trying to make the point that there is a clear conflict between the public interest and the particular interest of these armament firms. I was saying that the public interest is to prevent the increase of military aeroplanes, but it is clear from this quotation that Mr. Sopwith regards with satisfaction the increase in the number of military aeroplanes. We heard some months ago of an advertisement placed in a German newspaper by a British armament firm and we had the satisfactory assurance from the Government that no armaments would be allowed to be exported to Germany. May I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply whether, if by the Disarmament Convention some form of rearmament is allowed Germany, the withdrawal of that prohibition will be included and our private firms be allowed to benefit from German rearmament There again we should have a plain conflict between the interest of the firms and the public interest, because there is no Member of the House who would not deplore the fact of German rearmament.
Is it merely a coincidence that if we look across the Channel to France we see that the newspapers which were always opposed to the policy of M. Briand in endeavouring to bring about Franco-German relations, and which persistently attacked any move towards disarmament, are the very newspapers that are under the control of M. de Wendel, the president of the Comité des Forges? It will serve a useful purpose if we can hear something of the intention of the Government on this matter, because the record of the Government on the question of private manufacture is not one of which some of us can feel very proud. In September, 1932, the committee was set up to investigate the question, and the remit was:
To submit proposals to the Conference immediately on the resumption of its work in regard to the regulations to be applied to the trading in and the private and State manufacture of arms and implements of war.
The French representative, as the House knows, put forward a proposal for the total suppression of the traffic in armaments, and he was supported by the representatives of Spain, Poland and Denmark. What was done by the representative of the British Government, who was, I think, a Mr. Carr? In the first place, he objected to the competence of the committee to deal with the question at all. I am very glad to say that that submission was over-ruled by the legal section of the Secretariat.
Then the Danish representative suggested that a questionnaire should be sent out. As I understand it, it was to discover, inter alia, undertakings engaged in the manufacture of arms and the sales of Armaments; whether soldiers or persons actively connected with military administration were allowed to hold paid posts in private armament firms; and the purposes of the manufactures for which licences are permitted. The Danish representative who suggested this questionnaire was the chairman of the committee. The British representative opposed the sending out of the questionnaire and finally opposed the suppression of the traffic altogether. It was not a question of international agreement. I can well understand that there are numbers of hon. Members who would not be in favour of our suppressing this traffic unilaterally, but who would be in favour of it if it could be done all round. On this committee it was not a question of obtaining international agreement, but from the first point the British representative always tried to stand in the way of any progress towards the suppression of the traffic. I hope we shall learn to-day something of the future attitude of the Government, and I hope that it will reveal an advance on their previous attitude.
I would like to quote a statement by Lord Hailsham in the House of Lords on the 8th December, 1932. As far as I know, it is the only statement that has yet been made upon the British attitude on this question by any Member of the Government. He said:
His Majesty's Government are perfectly prepared to accept and to enforce further control of the private manufacture of arms going beyond the control which at present exists, provided that some equitable proposal for such control can be worked
out and that similar control is enforced in all arms-producing States. Obviously it would be impossible for us to enforce regulations which were not enforced elsewhere. We think the most equitable scheme would probably be found to lie along the line of control by licences and publicity of manufacture operated under the authority of the various national Governments rather than by some international authority. We believe that that control would be adequate to remove the evil effects of the private manufacture of arms which are referred to in the Covenant.
I would like the hon. Gentleman who replies to be a little more explicit than that and to tell us what form of control the Government would be ready to accept, and whether the British Government are prepared to put proposals to that end before the Disarmament Conference. Are they prepared to bring forward proposals themselves or are they going to wait for some other country to give a lead? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also tell us what he thinks of the proposal for a national armaments board which is put forward by the League of Nations Union. This board would be, like the Electricity Commissioners, in a position free from outside influence and its members would be appointed for a term of years. Under that arrangement the manufacture and sale of arms would be prohibited except by the order of the board. The other features of that scheme are that the contract departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force would come under the control of the board; all purchases by foreign countries would have to be made through the national board and payments by them would have to be made by the board; and, what is most important, all private firms would be prohibited from offering designs of arms, patents for arms or the results of any experiments on arms to any public or private body other than the national board of the country to which they belong. That proposal comes from a responsible body and perhaps the spokesman of the Government will tell us what the attitude of the Government is towards it.
I do not say that this scheme will abolish all the evils referred to in this Debate, but it will abolish the system of touting for orders in all parts of the world, and it may be sufficient to prevent the spectacle of the League of Nations endeavouring to stop war in China or in Manchuria or in South America while at the same time the States which make up
the League supply through their private manufacturers the munitions and the arms which make it possible for the wars to go on. After all, the difference between this industry and other industries is that the demand for armaments grows by what it feeds on. If you supply one country it means that other countries are ready to take your product as well, for if one country increases armaments it makes other countries feel insecure. It might also be sufficient to prevent a repetition of the kind of thing which we heard from the hon. Member for Westhoughton, the spectacle of British troops being mown down by British guns. I referred just now to the peroration on bombing from the air by the Lord President of the Council, and, in closing, I should like to remind the House of what he said on that occasion. He referred to the young men and said:
When the next war comes, and European civilisation is wiped out, as it will be and by no force more than by that force, then do not let them lay the blame upon the old men. Let them remember that they, they principally or they alone, are responsible for the terrors that have fallen upon the earth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; col. 638, Vol. 270.]
I have read that passage many times, but I have always found it a little difficult to follow the reasoning of the right hon. Gentleman. How many of the young men whom the right hon. Gentleman had in mind have been able to force their way into the cabinets of the great Powers? If the evils which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind do in fact come to pass, it will not be the fault of the younger generation; the responsibility will lie with those who had the opportunity but who neglected to remove the causes that make for war.

5.26 p.m.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We have listened to some very interesting and able speeches in this Debate, and I hope that the House, when it comes to a decision, will distinguish between the appeals to sentiment and passion and the appeals to reason. I think they will find that much of what has been said by the hon. Member who has just spoken and the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate has very little relation to the Motion which they ask the House to accept. For my part, I have no more desire to see a renewal of a war in which this country
would be engaged, or in which any other country would be engaged, than either of the hon. Members who have spoken, but I cannot see that the adoption of this Motion could in any way serve the cause of peace. On the contrary, I believe that we are directing our attention to the wrong point and are neglecting to press for that which might really be made effective. I am not going into all the past history, or what is given as history in the course of this Debate—it does not seem very germane to the issue—but I want to ask on what the hon. Member based the allegation that our soldiers were killed by arms supplied by our own country?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The Dardanelles.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member means arms supplied before the War to the Turkish Government?

Mr. FOOT: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: By Vickers.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is what I supposed the hon. Member meant. The hon. Member who opened the Debate used the same incident for a general appeal which he couched in the words, "What would the widows of these men have thought if they had known that they lost their lives through guns supplied by British manufacturers?" Would their lives have been spared if British manufacturers had not supplied these guns? That is the point. Is what we are asked to do going to lessen the dangers or is it going to transfer the supply of weapons from one source to another source? No one in this Debate has ventured to offer any definition of what is an armament firm. Does it mean any firm which does supply armaments? Presumably so. Does it mean any firm which supplies any part of any armaments? Does it mean any firm which has machinery used in the course of its civilian trade which could at once, or with very little difficulty, be adapted to the manufacture of arms if they were required?
These questions have to be faced and answered. Unless you mean by your Motion to cover all three classes you really do not attain the object which you profess to have in view, and if you do cover all three classes then what, indeed, is left for Socialism? Industry will have
been socialised already, so wide is the scope of the firms covered by such descriptions. I do not believe that is a practical policy. I do not believe it is an effective policy. In the present state of the world it would merely mean that our people would be deprived of one way of earning a living which is open to every other arms-producing country. I would add that there is nothing in the declarations or the actions of the American Government—for co-operation with which I am as anxious as the Noble Lady opposite—to lead us to suppose that they either are in a position under their Constitution to control the private manufacture of arms or would be disposed to take steps to obtain powers to control it.
What I invite the House to do is to look at a much easier and more effective form of control which, I think, would be quite as efficient for the purposes we have in mind. I refer to the control not of the manufacture of arms but of the international traffic in arms. We have in this country at the present time a system under which no arms can be exported without a licence, and the Government does not give its licence in any case except for the export of arms to the order of a Government with which we are in friendly relations or when it is satisfied that that Government approved the placing of the order and the delivery of the goods. If we could have an international system controlling the supply of arms from one country to another by a licence granted at the request of the importing Government, and if that were coupled with publicity for such transactions, we should have taken effective steps which really would reduce enormously, and probably almost completely remove, the kind of evils which are imputed to private manufacture, which if sometimes tainted, though I think but very little in this country—for as far as the incident of 1908 is concerned I am quite certain that there was no intention of deceiving the Government of that day, of which I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite was a Member—

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Not in the Cabinet.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I forget the exact date at which the right hon. Gentleman entered the Cabinet.

Sir H. SAMUEL: 1909. I never heard of Mr. Mulliner.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree with me that it is only to the credit of the Cabinet Ministers of that day that they obtained what they thought was good proof of a breach, or at least of an alteration, of the German plan, and that they were not acting upon loose rumour brought to them by an interested party. I suggest that the practical method is the control of the international traffic in arms. If with that we could couple a disarmament convention, or a convention for the limitation of armaments, putting a limit on the armaments which any country can possess, and had a system of international control to see that that convention was kept, as is proposed in the plan put forward by His Majesty's Government, we should have removed the last danger that armament firms would be enabled by agitation, by the purchase of newspapers, or by any other improper method, to start a new race of armaments. If we cannot get such a convention as that, the abolition of the private trade in arms will not stop the race in armaments, but merely increase in every country the number of Government arsenals, which will have to be large enough not only to supply the peace needs of those countries but, above all, to keep up supplies under any expansion which they would contemplate in war. I believe the suppression of the private trade would he not a step in advance but a backward step, immensely increasing the immediate expenditure of Governments on national armaments and the means for their production, and that all the effective action that we can hope to take we can get through the regulation of the international trade.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: The House ought to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having lifted the Debate from the exceedingly low level at which it had been left by the speakers on the other side of the House. Previously we had been treated to a long recitation, and it was only the good sense of hon. Members which permitted the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, to spend more than 20 minutes in reading a speech which had been compiled at some time or other before he came here. The speech of the hon. Member for South
Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) had at least the advantage that he invited us to judge of the arguments advanced on their intellectual merits. If that be done there can be no question that the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) must receive the united support of the House, because as yet no argument of any determined character has been advanced against it. The right hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the difficulties surrounding this question. There is no doubt that to enter into a definition of the term "armaments" and all that surrounds the production of arms would lead us far afield, because it would cover a wide number of industries and an enormous number of productive units which in peace times do not make arms at all. The force of that argument must be faced and admitted, as I admit it now; but, after all, what the House is being asked to do is to express an opinion upon a very simple problem which it should have no difficulty in understanding. In the words of the Motion, it is asked to express the view that:
The private manufacture of armaments in the pursuit of private profit is contrary to the public interest.
Is there any doubt at all about that principle? What does the Amendment propose to put in its place? The Motion suggests that there are in this country private individuals who make profits at the expense of people in other parts of the world. The suggestion in the Amendment is that instead of there being certain moneyed people in the country who are seeking to add to their profits, large sections of the working class might make a profit out of armaments if private manufacture were ended. Surely it does not follow that one more man would be employed in the manufacture of armaments if the State took over the work than is the case now, when the production of armaments is done partly by the State and partly by private firms. It does not at all follow that the numbers employed in the manufacture of arms would be increased, and that the interests created would become a danger to the State in consequence. Again, I fail to see why it should be suggested that a large number of Members of this House would become directly interested in maintaining the manufacture of arms if that were done by the State. It is more
likely that the number of Members interested in supporting this form of industry would be reduced. It is an attempt to prejudice the issue to suggest that more members of the working class might come to have a special interest in armaments.
Let us come to the question upon which the House has been asked to express an opinion—that the private manufacture of armaments for private gain is against public interest. Is that so or not? Why do we say that private interests pursue a course which is inimical to the national interest? First of all the manufacture of armaments does give rise to a financial interest in the creation of armaments, and also creates an interest in actual warfare. There can be no doubt that firms which produce arms and implements of warfare become interested in actual warfare. Further, they become directly interested in fostering warfare. About that there can be no doubt. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the end at which we are aiming might he achieved by controlling international trade. It is the same thing. He agrees with us in so far as he suggests that the end is the necessary and desirable one of controlling international trade. The desirability of controlling it can only arise in so far as there is an actual danger of warfare as the result of the trade. Is it not surprising that no individual in this country is allowed to carry arms unless he has a very good reason for it, but that we permit any number of our citizens to make the most deadly weapons and the most destructive chemicals and dispose of them to the country's most deadly enemies? If I were to express an opinion concerning the form of Government and the conditions in certain parts of Europe, I have no doubt that Mr. Deputy-Speaker would immediately draw my attention to the fact that I was out of order in expressing opinions in regard to Governments with whom this country still maintains friendly relations, and I should immediately be prohibited from expressing the very strong convictions that I hold concerning some of them. Nevertheless, no effort can be made to prevent our own people from supplying those Governments with munitions in order, it may be, to come over here and blow us to wherever they want to put us. That is the sort of contradiction in which we always seem to be.
Private firms are always ready to supply arms in any part of the world to any people who may require them, whether to responsible Governments or rebel forces, who can with equal ease be supplied. The armament firms are prepared to supply any country which is making ready for war, whether that war be right or wrong, because those firms are wholly indifferent as to what country may apply to them so long as the means of payment are at hand. They will sell armaments to Governments in cases where our own Government dare not supply them. Why should we? If our own Government dared not supply munitions of war to Japan quite recently, why do the Government permit munitions factories in this country to supply Japan? Why should individual firms be allowed to carry on a course of action which the Government would be bound to refuse? Why should individual firms be allowed to prejudice the general national interest? There is no doubt that private armament firms use their economic resources, inside the country too, in order to bring political influence to bear upon the Government and upon this House to determine the amount of expenditure upon armaments. Of that there is no doubt. This and other countries would provide an abundance of evidence to show the machinations of armament firms along those lines. That they traffic in the blood of nations cannot be denied. They traffic in and profit by the misery and misfortune of people throughout the world.
The League of Nations have recognised this, and every sincere and honest public man recognises the danger in the situation upon which we are asking the House to express an opinion. The fact that we are asking the House to do so does not necessarily mean that we are bound, to-night or in the immediate future, to discuss all the ramifications and to work out in every detail exactly how the matter is to be dealt with. The conscience of the country is certain to respond to the appeal now made, which is: "Do we as a people believe that we ought to give freedom to a certain number of people to make the means which can set millions of people killing each other in various parts of the world?" Remember the contradictory position in which we were recently. On numerous occasions, the Foreign Secretary was questioned in this House
about the dreadful situation in China. Japan was invading China and flouting the declared opinion of the world. If our Government had responded to the clamour of public opinion it would have interested itself and would have prevented Japan from going on with that business, but if the British Government had interfered with Japan's efforts to destroy China, the British Army or Navy would have had to face armaments made in this country.
The figures given to-day of the export of arms from this country show that some of them went to Japan and were used by Japan in China, and, when we were clamouring that our Government should use their influence to prevent Japan taking action against China, our countrymen were supplying the means of enabling Japan to do that very thing. That is the position. No drawing of false trails ought to be allowed to obscure the issue, which is a very simple one: "Is it, in our opinion, in the general interest, and is it a right principle, that we should permit individual private firms in this country to produce material which they can dispose of for profit to other nations, and in doing so create situations which might involve not only our own country in war, but any two nations of the world?" That is a principle which the conscience of the House of Commons ought to support.

5.53 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and with special interest, because I am in complete sympathy with the principle outlined in his Motion. I do not think that any of the four objections embodied in the Amendment in any way affect the principle as to whether private trade in armaments is right or wrong. I was far more deeply impressed by the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) than with the arguments of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. The question that we are discussing is one of the very greatest importance to all peoples and countries who have a desire for peace, as I believe we have. The principle is especially important to nations who are members of the League and who have signed the Covenant, which includes that important Article to which reference has already been made—Article 8. If that is so, we
must be constantly asking ourselves: "Are there not further steps which we can take in conjunction with other nations, or alone if necessary, which will not only be beneficial to ourselves, but would represent a step forward on the path of peace?"
Many attempts have already been made at Geneva to come to some satisfactory arrangement with regard to the private production of armaments, but those attempts have so far not succeeded, the reason always being that the requisite number of States have never been able to agree upon the same thing at the same moment. I believe that most of the great manufacturing countries have shown an interest and a willingness to do something in the matter, and I believe there is now a Draft Convention waiting to be signed or considered. The arguments against retaining this trade in private hands have been so well set out that I need not repeat them. The position boils down to what has just been said by the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) and that is, "Do we or do we not think that it is in the interests of peace that this traffic in arms by private firms for private profit should be allowed to continue?" If the answer is: "No," we must further ask ourselves what we are prepared to do about it—not what are we prepared to do do if some other country does something else, but what are we prepared to do on our own.
The Government have certainly shown on several occasions their sense of responsibility in this matter. We all remember the occasion upon which the Government tried to limit the export of arms to China and Japan, but the veto had soon to be removed, because it was conditional upon other nations following suit, and we all know that those other nations did not do so. Only last week in this House the Lord Privy Seal said—and this was emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to-day—speaking of the difficulties of taking over the armament industries, said
there should be a rigorous control of the export of armaments from all manufacturing countries which will enable us to keep a control and knowledge of the trade as it takes place,"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th February, 1934; col. 1104, Vol. 285.]
Isolated action is not the best method of dealing with this question. Short of
taking over the armaments industry, a task which I realise would be extraordinarily difficult, owing to the many ramifications of modern industry and invention. Surely, our Government could, without international agreement, exercise more definite control over all exports of arms and ammunition from this country. Undoubtedly, it makes most of us shiver to realise that while our statesmen are working at Geneva for peace among nations, they are at the same time granting licences for the supply of munitions to foreign countries for carrying on war with one another, and perhaps some day with ourselves.
I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, at one time, licences were not granted for the export of arms and munitions not only to China and Japan but to Paraguay and Bolivia, while, in each case, those countries were at war with each other. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would also expound exactly how these licences are granted and what the system is, through whose hands the applications go before they are issued, whether they are viewed by the heads of the Department or whether the matter is only a mere formality? I should also be glad if he would be good enough to say in his reply how many, if any, of the licences have been refused, except in the case which I have mentioned of China and Japan. If the Government would insist upon publishing some regular monthly list with all the details of armaments, and the quantity and destination of the exports, that would, I believe, go a long way to awakening public opinion and accomplishing something more definite.
Otherwise, to all intents and purposes the licences are perfectly futile. I know the many difficulties and the complicated arguments that are raised in connection with this matter, but the principle of the thing is quite simple, direct and easy to understand, namely, that private profits should not be made from the manufacture of arms for the purpose of killing our fellowmen. I should like to see a great Press campaign in which the "Times" and the "Daily Herald," as well as other papers of intermediate shades of opinion, would give publicity to the matter. We enjoy the benefits of an unfettered Press, and such joint action would therefore be possible, which is not the case, I understand, in all foreign
countries. The campaign need not and should not cast any aspersion upon individual firms or shareholders.
After all, the private production of armaments has been the accepted method for a very long time, and, that being the case, these firms must in the nature of things be viewed as ordinary businesses, which are obliged to consider good business and profits as of first importance. Obviously, as far as I can see, good business for armament industries can only mean one thing—wars, bloodshed, and the fear and hope of more wars. It is interesting to read the Debates of over 140 years ago, when this House was discussing the abolition of the slave trade, and to find that the arguments used for and against that trade could be applied with equal weight, and with scarcely the changing of a sentence, to the question we are discussing to-day. Wilberforce, in his original speech introducing the question for the first time, used these words;
I mean not to accuse anyone, but to take the shame upon myself, in common, indeed, with the whole Parliament of Great Britain, for having suffered this horrid trade to be carried on under their authority. We are all guilty, We ought all to plead guilty, and not exculpate ourselves by throwing blame on others; and, therefore, I deprecate every kind of reflection against the various descriptions of people who are more immediately involved in this wretched business.
I do not intend to draw any lurid pictures of the many evils attendant on the private trade in arms and munitions. The very unpleasant incidents which have occurred in all parts of the world are well known to Members of the House, though, unfortunately, not so well known to members of the public. I realise, as other Members of Parliament must realise, how little is known by the great mass of the electors about White Papers, draft Amendments, aidesmemoire, and things of that kind, the object of which is, I know, primarily to inspire confidence, but which in actual fact more often arouse suspicion. It seems to me very probable that only a small percentage of people know of the seriousness of this private trade in armaments and its many ramifications; I think that if people knew more about it they would take it more seriously. It is the widespread ignorance of our unsuspecting public that convinces me of
the necessity for a campaign to arouse opinion on this matter. With regard to our waiting until we can take action in agreement with other nations, I cannot do better than refer again to the antislavery Debate which took place in this House over 100 years ago, when many Members were arguing that, if we stopped that trade, France and other foreign countries would get all the benefit by increasing their trade. To that argument Fox replied:
The great blessing of having a fixed and established government such as ours was to be able to look our abuses in the face and correct them with deliberation and safety.
These sentences, and many others, show that difficult things have not proved beyond the power of this House to overcome in the past, and I would beg the Government, while they are seeking at Geneva for an international agreement on this question, to give a lead by taking some definite action here on the home front, thereby showing that we are at least serious, both in our adherence to Article 8 of the Covenant and in our condemnation of this trade as it is carried on in our country to-day.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), whose speeches are always listened to with respect in this House, stated that he had heard most of the speeches which had been made in the Debate to-day, that most of them were based on sentiment, and that what we had to do was to apply reason. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the most powerful influence in the world to-day is still sentiment. Reason has been used a good deal; people are able to give reasons why we should carry on the vicious system which is responsible for this Debate; but my humble opinion is that we can neither have peace nor disarmament under capitalism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It cannot be done. It is because of capitalism that the world is a seething mass of war to-day; Europe is an armed camp after 2,000 years of the preaching of the Gospel of Peace.
If there is one industry in this country that could be easily nationalised and taken over by the Government, it is the making of armaments. There are only
three armament firms in Britain—there is only one left in Scotland, and there are only two in England—recognised by the Government. I happen to know something about this business. I am representing here the men that make the armaments, and I worked at making armaments till I was 40 years of age. I worked at the making of armaments during the War; I did all I could to stop the War, and I would do the same again; but I want to face facts, and the facts are these, that every time war credits come before this House I vote against them, no matter what Government is in, but, when this House decides for armaments, then I try to get the armaments to the Clyde, as far as I can.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is practical politics.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This House is a fortunate House in our day and generation. During the War the leaders of those who were against nationalisation, who were against municipalisation, who were in favour of private enterprise, were the Liberal party, who are conspicuous by their absence from the House at this moment. Their greatest spokesman in my time, bar nobody, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). During the War, when he was Minister of Munitions and dealing with the armament firms, before he could get the munitions he required he had to get control of the armament factories, and the shipyards that were building the battleships—they all had to come under Government control. Why? Because those individuals who were in control of those factories and shipyards at that time took advantage of the circumstances by which they were surrounded, took advantage of the patriotism that was abroad, in order that they might get huge profits. I am now repeating what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—the statement is not mine—that those individuals were more interested in their own individual firms and aggrandisement than they were in their country. Further, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated that he had more trouble in dealing with the employers of labour than he had with the workmen. These are reasons why the time is ripe and it would be in the interests of the Government and the
country that this industry should be controlled by the Government—that it should be nationalised, instead of being as it is at the moment.
It has often been said against us, when we advocated the nationalisation of any industry, that it was impossible to expect that, if you took away the incentive of the private individual in his concern, you would not take away the inventive genius and the great organising ability, and that, therefore, the work would not succeed. Again this industry of armaments gives the lie to all that. One of the very biggest armament-making firms in this country is owned by the Bank of England. The Bank of England sacked the owner of the great armament firm that bears his honoured name, dispensed with his services, would not allow him a seat on the board of management, sent down a nominee of their own to be chairman of the firm, took over a one-time General Secretary of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and put him on the board of control, took a chartered accountant from London and put him on the board of control. The only individual in the Beardmore firm who has any connection whatever with the manufacture of armaments is the manager at Dalmuir, a local man, and the only one that is on the board. All the others are nominees of the Bank of England, and all the transfer that would be necessary here is from the Bank of England to the Government. That firm could not have carried on had it not been for the guarantee of the Bank of England behind it, and, further, the Bank of England could not have carried on but for the guarantee of the British Government behind it. These are facts, and
Facts are chiels t winna ding,
An' downa be disputed.
It is the easiest thing in the world. Again—I expected it to be trotted out here, because there are individuals in this House who are very much interested in the manufacture of armaments; there is no doubt about that—who have tens of thousands of pounds—

Viscountess ASTOR: Who are they?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you want me to name them?—who have tens of thousands of pounds invested in armament firms. As I am being pulled up on this, let me say to the individuals who are posing here in a white sheet that
they need not do that to me, because I have been an armament maker. I have been a gun maker; I have worked on things of that type, and my folk did before me. Society demanded that we engineers should make those machines of destruction; it was our means of livelihood. But those who have their money invested in property where folk of that kind live, those who have their money invested in factories which cloth the soldier or the sailor, those who are making boots or shoes and all the things that go to provide for the Army and the Navy, those who grow the food for them, are just as much interested, and are in the same category as those who are producing guns or battleships. People had better examine and see if their money is invested in something else which is reaping the benefit of the conflict between Paraguay and Chile. It is farreaching. You cannot have peace and you cannot abolish armaments under capitalism, because it is interwoven. It is in the very framework of capitalism. The Prime Minister and I have taken an active part in bringing this question forward. I stood by him when he had not a friend, when everyone chased him, as they may chase him again. See what they have done with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. They sucked him and squeezed him like an orange, and then threw him adrift, and they will do the same with anyone whenever it suits them. Listen to what the Prime Minister said, speaking with me in 1917 at Leith, when he was an outcast:
What they ought to have done when they conscripted labour was to conscript wealth.
That is my case. I never was a pacifist, and I am not a pacifist yet, because I would defend the Socialist Republic if necessary at the point of the bayonet, although I always defended the pacifist, and will still to the best of my ability. But I am not under any delusion, and my comrades are not under any delusion. Think what is going on in Vienna, and not a move is being made. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh when men, women and little children are being blown to fragments. They are nothing but yahoos. They laugh at the very idea, but my blood boils. I have been in Vienna and seen these places where
people are being blown to fragments simply because they take a different point of view from the majority, and this House makes no mention of it.
I hope that the Government will take this Motion into serious consideration. I put a question to the Prime Minister in December asking him whether he would put into practice what he had preached with me for 30 years, not only to nationalise the manufacture but also the sale of armaments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham called it trafficking in armaments, but I call it the sale of armaments. We ask that that should be done, believing that it would be in the interest of all concerned. I raised it again with the Prime Minister when he went to America on the Peace Mission. We were building a cruiser at Beardmore's, at Dalmuir, and, as a gesture to the world, the Prime Minister stopped the building of it. I wrote to him in America, but I had to wait until he came back. I told him it was all right for him to make this gesture, but what provision did he make for my constituents who were thrown into the street? His reply was our incomparable social services—15s. 3d. a week for my son. I asked him if he thought that good enough for his son. The Beardmore firm was compensated for the cruiser being stopped. The Bank of England was compensated. They got the cash, but the ordinary workman was thrown out into the street. If they had been horses, they would have been kept in proper condition, but, because they were human flesh and blood, they were simply thrown out and worried for their rent.
Under our ideas these things would not occur. The worker would be treated humanely. He would not be used simply as merchandise, as pig-iron or any other commodity used in the manufacture of armaments. He would he treated as a human being with all the rights of a human being. It is because we believe that this is an industry that could be easily taken over at the moment by the Government and run in the interest not only of the country but of the workers that I support the Motion.

6.27 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The hon. Member always brings eloquence to
our Debates, and I think he often brings a greater sense of reality than others, though sometimes the fervour of his eloquence obscures the soundness of his reasoning. The case that he has made out is one that I am not prepared to answer. His case, as I understand it, is that under Socialism and only under Socialism could this new era to which he looks forward be introduced. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies), in order to narrow the field of the Debate and not to disguise the real nature of the Motion, forwent any claim to the advantages that he would naturally expect to follow from the introduction of a system of Socialism, so we are not discussing that great question to-day.
The hon. Member who has just spoken also said that he, like all of us, is against war and the increase of armaments, but, if there are to be armaments, if this House wants armaments, he is going to see that as many as possible come from the Clyde. That is the attitude of a great many other people. I do not suppose that there is any body of opinion, I hope there are no individuals in the country who want war or like to see the nations preparing for war, but there are a great many people who say that, "If the nations will fight, if they will have these terrible weapons, and they are certainly going to get them, we may as well provide them as anyone else and give our people work." I was also interested to hear the hon. Member confess frankly that, if his principles and his party were attacked, he was prepared to defend them with the bayonet. There are other people who care for their ideas and their opinions as sincerely as he cares for the Socialist party, and they will be prepared when the time comes to fight for their ideals with the bayonet or with more terrible, more modern and effective weapons if they are able to command them.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Westhoughton for raising this question, because it is one that wants discussion. After the War there was throughout the world so universal a desire for peace, such an outcry went up in every corner of the globe for peace at any price, that, ever since, people in a hurry have been trying to find some quick road, some back door, some easy way of obtaining what, if it were obtained, would be the greatest change in
human affairs of which we have any knowledge, the abolition of war between civilised countries. They have thought to do it in this way and in that. It seemed simple. They have tried the pact, the protocol, one thing and another, treaties of this kind and treaties of another kind. They seem to me to be proceeding rather as the alchemists of the Middle Ages proceeded in their search for health. They tried by magic to find the elixir of life, believing that then there would be no more trouble. All their efforts were doomed to disappointment, and only now do we realise—at least I think that most people do—that there is no elixir of life, and that only by proceeding slowly along scientific lines can we prolong life and improve health.
It is, I believe, only by proceeding slowly along well-thought-out lines that we can diminish the danger of war, and I see no reason whatever why we should not, in the fullness of time, eliminate it altogether as a means of settling disputes between civilised nations. But the particular matter which we are discussing this afternoon has seemed to many people to be an easy way. To the people who drew up the Covenant of the League of Nations, who, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) reminded us, were, after all, only men and fallible, it seemed to be so unpleasant, as it seems to all of us—the spectacle of human beings making their living out of these instruments of destruction—that they entered it in the Covenant of the League as one of the things about which they were going to think seriously because they did not like it. As far as I am aware, this is perhaps the first time we have had an opportunity in this Chamber of discussing the merits of this very proposal by itself, namely, the prohibition of the private manufacture of armaments in Great Britain. That, it must be remembered, is what we are discussing.
The first accusation which is brought against the private manufacture of armaments as a system is that it tends to produce an interest in the country which is in favour of more and larger weapons and which, therefore, is an element opposed to peace, and that such an element has a sinister, hidden perhaps, but disastrous effect upon the policy of great States. I submit that, after the evidence
we have heard this afternoon, that bogey has been exploded so far as this country is concerned. I am not here to answer for Mr. Shearer, for the attacks made upon the French Government, and for the sinister influence of the Comité des Forges, but I would say that when hon. Members in the same breath quote France as the one country where the armament influence is at its worst, and point out how many newspapers are owned by the Comité and how the Government must be under their influence, they cannot, at the same time, point out to us that France is the one country that was willing to abolish the private manufacture of arms, and we were the one country against it. If this influence is so strong, how came it about that at the Committee in Geneva, France was the country which first agreed to abolish the private manufacture of arms, and we were the country which held out against it? They cannot have it both ways.
The only miserable scrap of evidence which has been brought forward by the hon. Member for Westhoughton and which was repeated with even greater conviction by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot), was the old story of the gentleman who came from Coventry in the year 1908 and persuaded the Liberal Government that the Germans were building a bigger navy. I am not impressed. If it be true that the Liberal Government—and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was sitting by his hon. Friend's side when this extraordinary accusation was made, and although it happened to be the year before he actually joined the Cabinet, he was certainly a Minister at the time—really relied upon commercial travellers from Coventry for their information—and it was not a Government for which I had very great admiration—it was a much poorer Government than I had ever supposed. If the evidence given by this gentleman proved inaccurate in detail, was it really so very false? Was the gentleman from Coventry quite wrong? Were the Germans not building a big navy, and had they no desire to go to war? I have read the history of that period, and it seems to me that the gentleman from Coventry was largely right, and if he produced that effect upon the Liberal Government, as the hon. Member for Dundee evidently supposed he did,
that single instance was the greatest benefit to England that ever an armament firm conferred on this country. So much for the exploded bogey of the black hand, the hidden influence of the great financier who is supposed to pull the wires behind the screen of the Cabinet.
What was the next objection? The difficulty of deciding what are armaments and what are not. They say, "Abolish the private manufacture of arms" but nobody has attempted to define what armaments are. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was good enough to tell me exactly the number of armament firms in this country, and exactly the number in Scotland. He has sources of information which are closed to me. I have asked my Department—and they have consulted with other Departments—how many firms in this country can be said to be manufacturing arms, and they found it quite impossible to give a definition and to state the number, because it is almost impossible to say what are armaments and what are not. The French Government have come forward with the definition that when certain objects are rendered unfit for peaceful purposes that is the moment when these objects become armaments.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: When I spoke about armaments, of course I included all, as the hon. Gentleman heard in my speech—clothing, etc.—but there are only three armament firms in this country—and the Government know it—which are in a position to make armour-plate and big naval guns.

Mr. DORAN: It is a shame. We ought to have 50.

Mr. COOPER: Armour-plate and big naval guns are not the only forms of armament. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's information will not prove as valuable to me as I had hoped it would. I am quite prepared to accept the sincerity of the French Government but I should like to warn the House that before agreeing to what you are going to abolish you should find out exactly what the definition of it really is. I was at Geneva some years ago as a representative of His Majesty's Government in a humble capacity, and a proposal was brought forward there for regulating the traffic in alcoholic liquor and it was submitted to a Committee of which I was a member. I was naturally thinking of
one of the great industries of the country from which the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs comes, and I was opposed to any interference of the kind. I thought that I should be able to rely upon the support of my French colleague realising what was one of their principal exports. On the contrary, I found that he was strongly in favour of it, but he pointed out, as the Debate with regard to definition went on, that of course neither beer nor wine were alcoholic, and from his point of view he doubted whether the term could properly be applied in French to old brandy. But on the question of defining exactly what we mean by armaments, I have before me a document prepared by a sub-committee set up by the League of Nations in order to inquire into the private manufacture of arms. This is one of their conclusions:
It would, however, be impracticable in present conditions to eliminate private profit from all stages of the production of arms and munitions. Nothing short of complete nationalisation of industry into each State combined either with the prohibition of international cartels or the Internationalisation of the control of raw materials could wholly eliminate private profit in the manufacture of the implements of war.
Surely that should prove sufficiently to the House that we are discussing something which, with the best will in the world, we could not bring into effect.

Mr. WILMOT: I think that it is right, in quoting from that document, that it should be clear that a proposal made at a later stage was whether effective control by the nation over private manufacture can be exercised.

Mr. COOPER: I was not discussing control. I would remind the hon. Member that we exercise control already over manufacture, and we are practically the only country which does so. It is generally agreed that it is impossible to eliminate private profit and, therefore, as long as it is impossible, you still have this sinister influence going on. Suppose you take over steel plates, or whatever it may be, at a certain period of manufacture, and take them to a Government factory, the firms which make them—as the hon. Member pointed out with regard to firms who make clothing for war purposes—still have an interest in war and rumours of war. Even if it were possible to eliminate all that, and even in the millennium of the Socialist party with the
whole thing under the control of the State, there would still be hundreds of thousands of people interested in the manufacture of armaments dependent upon them, not for dividends or profit but for their daily bread, and for their wages. When we are told about the sinister figures of high finance, who only exist in fiction, and who, owing to their interest in armaments, buy Cabinet Ministers and buy Governments, we know that Cabinet Ministers and Governments are much more easily affected by the thought of 100,000 votes than by the thought of £100,000. The more people engaged by a Government making armaments, the greater the pressure would be likely to be on Governments in order to increase the number of those armaments.
What would be the first effect if we were to attempt to put into force the principle which lies behind this Motion? In the first place, it would mean the ruin of a large number of private firms which are not now making vast profits out of the manufacture of armaments, because no firms are able to do so. No firm can be accused of even having the larger part of their output concerned in the manufacture of armaments. The principal firms which would be affected are those which are engaged in the engineering and shipbuilding industry. Does anybody think that those industries are doing so well at the present time that we can afford to play about with them? These are the industries which have been carrying on during these last years with their lives in deadly and daily peril, making losses year after year, just keeping their heads above water, and allowing for themselves that margin of profit which they sometimes make, and sometimes fail to make, by the trade they get either from this Government or other Governments in the way of supplies which may be used in case of war. It would mean the ruin of those firms, and the throwing out of work of large numbers of men. The hon. Member for South Croydon estimated that the number thrown out of work would be 25,000. I do not think he over-estimated it by any means. I think that probably it might be far higher. At the same time, you would be driving out of those industries the talent which is at present engaged in them. We have had a great many appeals to our emotions this evening so far as weapons
of war are concerned. Nobody likes the idea of warfare and nobody likes the idea of using the most terrible weapons, but if we look at the matter with sense and not with sentimentality, we have to realise that so long as we have an Army, a Navy and an Air Force they must be equipped with the most modern, the most terrible, and the most revolting weapons that science can possibly invent. At the present moment there are vast numbers of people in this country engaged in one way or another in some industries connected with the manufacture of arms. Their interests, their minds are given to the production of terrible weapons.
Only a week or two ago we were celebrating, or we might have been celebrating, the centenary of a great inventor of armaments, who was also a great humanitarian and a great philosopher, Alfred Nobel. He discovered dynamite and one thing after another, each more terrible than the one before, and he always said that he believed his work would help to finish war. He hated war as much as anybody in this House. He left a huge fortune for furthering the cause of science, literature, and peace, but he did not believe, as some of our sentimentalists are inclined to believe, that you will get rid of war by saying that you will not use a certain type of weapon, that you will get rid of war by making it pleasant, or that people would not go to war if they thought that certain terrible things would not be done. Who would not prefer to go to war with a battle axe and a bow and arrow rather than with a gas mask and a Mills bomb? Alfred Nobel thought that his discoveries would make war so terrible that it would become unthinkable, and I cannot but think that he was right, and that it would be wrong for us to believe that by shutting down inventions in this country, by employing less people in it, we should thereby be furthering the cause of peace.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) was very shocked at Mr. Sopwith having exported a large number of fighting aeroplanes to another country. I do not know why he need be shocked. He might have been shocked at the other country buying them, but does he suggest that if Mr. Sopwith had not supplied those machines, the country concerned would not have bought machines at all? Does he not know that that country would
have applied elsewhere and would have got them? Would he have felt any more satisfaction that that particular country would have been just as well prepared for our destruction or the destruction of any other country by obtaining the machines elsewhere instead of obtaining them from us?

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Does the hon. Member not agree that if you sell fighting aeroplanes or any other kind of armaments to one country it is much more likely that other countries will buy them in the future?

Mr. COOPER: If another country supplies fighting machines, then the country that wants them will buy them. I cannot follow the hon. Member's argument. There are some countries that manufacture no war materials at all. The fact has been lost sight of—the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring) seemed to be unaware of it—that in this country, where we exercise control, we have set an example to the world in reducing our armaments; an example that no other country has followed. We have set an example to the world in the control of our armaments, and we are quite prepared to consider, together with other nations, other measures of control. The hon. Member for Dundee asked if I am in favour of a national armaments board. That is a big proposal and not one that I can consider at a moment's notice, but it seemed to me an extremely dangerous proposal. He described it as an independent body. I never know what an independent body is. I do not know what an independent man is, or a man without a prejudice. His proposal would mean handing over to a so-called independent board the control of a very important part of the nation's business. I think it much better that the Government should continue to exercise control, although I am sure the Government would be quite prepared to consider any system for improving it.
Hon. Members who support the Motion also forget that while, as the hon. Member for East Rhondda said, we sent munitions to China and Japan, we were the only country in the world to put an embargo on the sending of munitions. We set an example in that respect, but not one country attempted to follow it. Of the four countries that agreed to the
abolition of the private manufacture of armaments, not one gave the slightest response to our gesture. Therefore, in a fortnight we took off the embargo, but during those two weeks we lost a great many orders. China and Japan did not get less munitions because of our embargo, but the men in this country got less work, less food, less employment as a result of that embargo.
The hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) asked me if we had supplied arms both to Paraguay and Bolivia. We were neutral in that dispute and I do not know wnat she would have had us do. I do not know whether she would have had us support one side or the other. I do not know whether her sympathies are Bolivian or Paraguayan. Short of withdrawing munitions from both as we did from China and Japan, I do not see how we could have acted otherwise than we did. I would also point out that there was a Convention signed by this country and many others in 1925 by which we undertook not to supply weapons to primitive countries or to certain private firms and individuals, because it would increase the danger of civil war in those countries. We ratified that Convention but a sufficiency of other countries have not ratified it and it has not come into force. Once again we set an example but nobody has followed it.
If we were now to abolish the private manufacture of arms in this country we should tremendously encourage and increase the private manufacture of arms in every other country in the world where no control would be exercised over it. Would not the world be far worse off than it is to-day by the fact that these same weapons would be manufactured, that numbers of firms would be set up to manufacture them, would take advantage of the encouragement that we should give them? These firms would not go necessarily to the most highly civilised countries, not to those most prominent, those most active at Geneva and most under the influence of European civilised opinion, but they might go to remote and primitive countries where the manufacturers could do exactly as they wished and where they could supply arms and weapons of all sorts to whoever came first and whoever made the demand upon them. The real reason why it is essential to us to
maintain the private manufacture of arms is that our whole system of defence is based upon the principle of maintaining the very minimum of armed forces, by cutting down everything to the lowest possible point, and we can only do that so long as we feel that in an emergency there is the possibility of expansion. In the late War we realised that danger and we took advantage of the possibility of expansion, but we know how limited our means of expansion were.
If we got rid of the private firms who manufacture arms—none of which is to-day living entirely or mainly on the manufacture of arms—it would mean that we should have immediately to increase, and increase very largely, the public, the Government, the State manufacture of arms. We should have to increase our stores, our arsenals and our dockyards. We should be building things and we should not be certain that they would be wanted, things that might prove useless—ships, weapons, munitions, that might never come into use. We should be expending that public money and at the same time in spending it and increasing the expenditure of the State we should be losing revenue, because while those private firms exist they exist for the benefit of the State. They support people, and they pay taxes, whereas the revenue that we should then be compelled to spend in the country's wellbeing would have to be spent upon possibly unneeded munitions of war, which would be thrown away for they would be of no purpose.
The sentimental appeal is very strong, but it is time that we should face facts. We are not going to get rid of war by any of these easy methods. We are living in a dangerous world. It is not growing less dangerous, but more dangerous every day. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has reminded us of the things that are taking place in Europe to-day, events that we have seen within the last few weeks and within the last year. There is not a better feeling, but a less good feeling of confidence between nations. There are not more peaceful conditions, but less peaceful conditions abroad. We have seen revolution in Spain. We have seen the worship of force magnified in Germany. We have seen Frenchmen shooting Frenchmen in the streets of Paris and Austrians killing Austrians in Vienna. When civil war can
break forth so easily, can anyone pretend that we are safe from international war? In these circumstances, what should our policy be? Our policy should be to pursue peace. I am quite sure of that. That should be our first principle, our main principle, our guiding principle, because the only real security for the British Empire is the maintenance of peace. That will come about only by a better understanding between the nations and only by a change in the minds of men. When that takes place disarmament conferences will be unnecessary. Until it takes place disarmament conferences must be tinged with insincerity.
Disarmament conferences are at least an outward sign of inward grace. They are an evidence of a desire which is general to obtain peace. But we must face the possibility that all our efforts will end in failure, that our efforts to preserve peace will prove in vain and that war may break out. There is no man who will deny that that is a possibility. How are we to face that fearful catastrophe otherwise than by having the best Navy, the best Army and the best Air Force that our country can afford. Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen can do little, indeed they can do nothing, unless we provide them with the weapons of war. We know how it was possible for our soldiers, no less brave and no less valiant than their adversaries to be slaughtered because they had not the munitions, the guns, the shells with which to defend themselves. God grant that we may never see that again. We can only make sure that that will never happen again by preserving our reserves. Our reserves are as important to our fighting forces as are the men in the front line, and our reserves are those very private firms to which reference has been made to-night. We do not want to waste money that we sorely need on piling up reserves of munitions which cost much to look after and which may at any moment become obsolete, out-of-date and mere scrap-iron. We do not want to waste money in that way, but we should be pledged to do so if this Motion were accepted as the only alternative to having those reserves which we have at the present time. If we acted on this policy we should increase unemployment, increase the manufacture of arms in every foreign country, increase
our own ostensible supply of arms, which some people think is provocative, and we should decrease and perhaps strike a fatal blow at our own real security.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be torn between two emotions, which appeared in almost every alternate sentense of his speech. I was glad to find at the end that he expressed the views that we and most decent people feel with regard to war. The hon. Gentleman, however, did not make out a very good case against the Motion. He began by working himself up to a state of bellicosity compatible with his office and with his function to-night. He said that he would avoid party prejudice as far as he possibly could, but he has failed to remove from his mind that political bias which should be kept out of a discussion on a subject like this. He said that we were not discussing Socialism to-night. He missed the main point of the Motion. The Motion calls for the abolition of private profits from the manufacture of armaments, and, when the manufacture of peaceful commodities is carried on without private profits, that is a state of Socialism. A kind of national control is proposed and not an immediate state of prohibition, the intention being to remove the incentive to production with all the dangers which have been referred to in various parts of the Debate.
The hon. Gentleman said that we are not under Socialism to-day, and then went on for half an hour and longer, in one of the most eloquent appeals that I have ever heard in this House, to show the danger in which the whole world stood at present, not under Socialism but under Capitalism. In every capitalist country in the world to-day there is revolution and the threat of revolution; civil war; unthinkable, inconceivable horrors lurking behind the face of things, because the capitalist system cannot preserve peace. This speech will prove to be, when closely examined, the best piece of Socialist propaganda to which the House has listened for many years. It is a confession of the utter breakdown of peaceful relations between the peoples of the world. He said that before abolishing war we must be content with gradual progress towards the institution of peace. He said that he did not believe that the
elixir of life could be discovered by political action or the concerted action of mankind, but that progress must be made gradually along well-thought-out lines.
What we ask for is quite consistent with the kind of progress which the hon. Gentleman has in his mind. Our Motion is consistent with what he suggested as an ideal. Long before the Great War of 1914, there were signs of this private organisation for the production of armaments. Mr. Mulliner was only one of many such men; his name can be multiplied a hundred times over. There were countless examples of men who acted in the same way as he did; who secured the audience of Governments—not perhaps of this Government, but of every other Government in Europe, and enjoyed private influence over statesmen, diplomats and cabinets. This is not a new danger, and because it was not new, one of the first duties of the League of Nations was to provide against it. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) read the extract from Article 8, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, embodying the conviction of all the nations who were signatory to the Covenant that manufacture by private enterprise of armaments and implements of war was open to grave objection. This grave objection was known before the War of 1914 and was in evidence during the War itself. It is an undeniable fact that war implements, armaments, shells, projectors of all kinds were used against our own people in almost all the theatres of war. Torpedoes made by British firms sank British ships. It is because of the wide prevalence and great danger of this vested interest, the incentive to profit that underlies private manufacture, that the League of Nations expressed condemnation of this trade.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not agree at all with some of the things that were said by the mover and others, and that they were unduly stressed. He minimised the effect of propaganda and said that the danger of propaganda of this kind bad been long ago exploded. He tried to find some justification by referring to the position of France in this regard in connection with the Comité des Forges. This organisation is one of the most dangerous elements of French political life, and every
serious-minded French politician would like to withdraw the political life of France from its influence. The Comité des Forges is not satisfied with being a steel-producing concern or even with making armaments; it has subsidised newspapers in France and other countries. The activities of similar bodies in Germany are very well known. There has been assiduous and constant worldwide propaganda, and it is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no danger from it at the present time. There is propaganda in this country and everywhere. The hon. Gentleman himself almost made a propaganda speech. People have sometimes been innocently drawn by their fear of war into playing the part of publicists for these organisations which are designed to make profit out of armaments. Once a state of fear has been created, these organisations profit by it through manufacturing some kind of protection against the dangers that people fear. It is no use the Minister saying that Mulliner was only a commercial traveller, and that the incident was not worthy of notice and could be laughed out of court in this House. If any Minister in this House says that there is no danger in this covert, subtle propaganda that goes on to-day, stirring up strife in order that more armaments may be sold, he is only exposing this country more completely to that danger.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was a very difficult thing to decide what are and what are not armaments. We agree; nobody in this House believes that it is a simple thing to say exactly, "Here is a workman making armaments, here is another, and here is another, and the total is 20,000 people working on armaments in 1933." He said that there were admittedly about 20,000, but there are not 20,000 workpeople working exclusively on the manufacture of implements of war or their concommitants. They are working in conjunction with other people in productive enterprise, part of the fruits of whose labour is destined to be used for armaments. In South Wales men engaged in steel production do not fashion the implements of war themselves, but they produce the steel which at some later stage goes to another works to be fashioned into warlike implements. Nickel is not a munition of war, but it is a necessary in-
gredient of certain kinds of steel for machines of war which the the Air Minister well knows. That does not justify the hon. Gentleman in speaking against the Motion. Once the principle of the Motion is conceded it will be his duty and the duty of all others to try to work out a scheme whereby this private profit, which we condemn and which is an inducement to the stirring-up of strife and to the creation of a demand for armament, upon which people live and which to the shareholders of the armament firms is just as much an investment as the wages of the men who make them, be finally abolished. While we agree that the Minister has difficulty in defining our terms, we do not find that to be a sufficient and final reason against our Motion.
The hon. Gentleman then argued that many of the firms in this country were working at a loss. He rather weakened his case by saying that they were not making profits at all, but losses, by producing these munitions. That statement cannot be borne out. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not try to induce the House to believe it. Everybody knows that the manufacture of armaments is a profitable business. I would challenge the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member to prove that munitions have been sent abroad from this country at a loss.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether it is a fact that owing to the very heavy capital expense, being met with a corresponding capital advance, the firms that have been supplying the Government with armaments are, now that the demand of the War has ceased, met with such heavy overhead charges that they are making losses to-day?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I cannot accept that suggestion without seeing figures. It is a highly profitable business, and they would not be conducting it in the manner they do if there were not much money in it. There is an occasional loss, because they supply people who cannot pay. There may have been Chinese generals who failed to win their place in the struggle in China, and the obligation they have undertaken cannot be met. Occasionally the armament manufacturer
fails to get paid, because the venture for which he supplied the armaments has not been successful.

Mr. L. SMITH: May I not remind the hon. Member that one of his own supporters has told the House this afternoon that a certain firm of armament suppliers in his district has been taken over by the bank practically bankrupt owing to the fact that it over-spent during the War supplying armaments to the Government and for that reason has lost so much money that it is unable to carry on?

Mr. GRENFELL: I am sorry I did not hear the speech. I was having a cup of tea. I cannot listen to all the speeches of my own party. I am sufficiently occupied in quarrelling with Members on the other side of the House. I think the hon. Member was weak in his reference to the people who make profits. If there were no profits, there would be no dangers; it is in the profits that the danger lies, and we say that the private profit should be eliminated. The hon. Member said war was getting more and more terrible, and gave us a most gloomy and terrible picture of the possible means of war in which we may be involved. I hope his summary of world conditions will not be vindicated by events, and that he, too, is suffering from the pessimism that sometimes overtakes all of us, and that events will not turn out as badly as he appears to think. But if war does break out in the world, this is a thing that must he admitted straight away. War will break out between the peoples of the world not because of Socialism, but because of the difficulties into which the capitalist system has driven itself. It is because of the failure to provide for human needs and the so-called excess of production. We are certainly free from any responsibility. I hope capitalism will not end in cataclysm or war, but will give way to a better system without any violent transformation.
The hon. Gentleman gave us an idea this afternoon that he himself is convinced that a fight must take place, and when my hon. Friend expressed sympathy with ordinary citizens in Vienna whose rights are invaded, whose homes are invaded and who are fighting for their lives against the oppressor, the hon. Gentleman said that if Socialists
could fight in Vienna there were people who could fight in this country. I am a pacifist, but I am not without my fair share of British pugnacity. It is my intellect that drives me to acknowledge pacifism as the ideal, and I say the Socialists of this country would fight, and so would any man worthy of the name, for the indispensable conditions of social and national greatness which we uphold. But I would like to believe that we are going on fighting our battles over the table, and not underneath the table. We will have to face the difficult question of our relation to the great machine of war, and the great and intricate system of production for war which has grown up in the world.
I feel quite sure that we are perfectly justified. We are going in line with the League of Nations and the Arms Traffic Convention to which the hon. Gentleman referred, not yet ratified by other countries and therefore not yet in force. We have spoken of the extensive propaganda that is an indisputable fact, and has been going on and is going on. The hon. Gentleman knows the figures given to the League of Nations in 1925 showing that no less than £10,000,000 was spent on death-dealing instruments, something sent out to destroy life, to destroy some poor human beings with whom the makers and users of those instruments have no quarrel. When a life is lost by these weapons, we who supply the instruments are accessories before the fact. We permit this sort of thing, and the Government that gives a licence to send death-dealing instruments to any part of the world is responsible. But we in this House also are responsible for the lives of those individuals who are killed. It is a terrible thing that in the Great War it cost us £3,500 to kill a man. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is a great mathematician; I do not know if he can tell us what was the profit made on that £3,500.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The profit was about one-twentieth of the amount paid in wages to produce these instruments.

Mr. GRENFELL: I will put it at one-tenth of the cost, and we can say that it cost £3,500, and there was a profit of £350. Once you eliminate this idea of profit you eliminate the incentive, and remove from yourselves the responsi-
bility for the deeds committed. We ask this House to prevent that incentive from operating, and to free itself from the terrible responsibility which falls upon it. The Motion is a very simple one, the Amendment less simple. I listened to the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment, and I think he had prepared his speech before the Motion was put down, perhaps soon after the General Election, when he had not recovered from the election fever. We have heard from him that this is a Motion that would mean loss of employment, and he could not support it. The hon. Gentleman is very much concerned with employment; he does not care how it is found. But suggestions have been made on this side of the House since he has been here. An hon. Friend of mine who represents the building industry has made a demand that the Government should carry through schemes to build houses. That would be beneficial, but the hon. Gentleman does not support that. He has no use for such a scheme. He says: "Let us make guns and high explosives and give employment to our people in death-dealing instruments, not life-dealing."
The hon. Member for South Croydon has sometimes shown good sense, but to-day he fell into the same trouble in seconding the Motion. It has been often urged against Socialists, and I have been taunted here, though less commonly in this House than years ago, with the statement that Socialists are unpracticable people who have no idea as to how things should be done. It was frequently said against them that they advocated nothing more constructive than taking in each other's washing. I have heard to-day something much more comical and ludicrous than that. I have heard two hon. Gentlemen moving and seconding an Amendment which means that they would find employment for the people of this country in flying at each other's throats. The hon. Gentleman had a good opportunity to-day. He made a bad use of it, but that is not my fault. The Minister, I am sure, is not insusceptible to the finest appeals anyone can make to him. I have not the eloquence which I would like to command at this moment, but I would like to make a most serious appeal to the Minister responsible and to the Government which he represents. He could not represent that Government
unless he maintained the ideal of efficiency in the services he represents, and adequate preparation and protection in the case of war. I do not expect from him a declaration such as I would make myself, but I expect him and those associated with him in the Government in these difficult days to view afresh and cast their eyes over the homes of the people of this country.
There is nobody here who wants war. There is no man, woman or child who does not dread and abhor the idea of war. There is no body of people in this country who would not sacrifice for peace and endure the temporary inconvenience of the loss of their jobs in the cause of peace. Let this House give effect to the desires and wishes of the people. Look abroad and see in this troubled world the condition of people who are striving in bewilderment and confusion to find a fresh start in life. See these people in their innocent and harmless occupations being marshalled against their will, very

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 173.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Bonfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Paling, Wilfred


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury).


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Smith, Torn (Normanton)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leonard, William
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mabane, William
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Wilmot.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Albery, Irving James
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Dawson, Sir Philip


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burnett, John George
Denville, Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Butler, Richard Austen
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Doran, Edward


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Drewe, Cedric


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Christle, James Archibald
Eastwood, John Francis


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Clarke, Frank
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cook, Thomas A.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cooper, A. Duff
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Boulton, W. W.
Craven-Ellis, William
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bracken, Brendan
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goff, Sir Park


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Gower, Sir Robert
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sinclair, Col T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Greene, William P. C.
Martin, Thomas B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nall, Sir Joseph
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Harbord, Arthur
North, Edward T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stones, James


Hornby, Frank
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Steurton, Hon. John J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jamieson, Douglas
Penny, Sir George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Jennings, Roland
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ray, Sir William
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lees-Jones, John
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Levy, Thomas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Robinson, John Roland
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McCorquadale, M. S.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Womersley, Walter James


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Salt, Edward W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)



Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Mr. Mitcheson and Mr. Herbert


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Scone, Lord
Williams.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

often to be prepared for a great conflict which must come, unless in this House, or somewhere in the world, something is done.

The hon. Gentleman holds an important position, but there is an equal responsibility on all of us to make a declaration that we do not stand for a system which is going out for private profit by the destruction of life in any part of the world. I would like the Minister to declare to-day that he will accept this Motion, because in it there is a beginning of that journey he hopes to accomplish by deliberate progress on well-ordered lines, to take the first step by eliminating private profit from the manufacture of arms, and removing incentives to gain at the expense of humanity.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Proposed words there added.

Resolved,
That this House would deplore a system which would increase the number of employés of the State having a vested interest in the increase in the production of instruments of war and would increase the number of Members of Parliament engaged in pressing the defence department to provide jobs for their constituents, and which would further deprive large numbers of workpeople of employment in the manufacture of goods for export, and would lead inevitably to the establishment of munition factories in many countries which have none at present.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.37 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I remember that on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have suggested that Members should be brief in their speeches. If I have to refer to my notes more than is usual, it will be for the reason that I intend to be brief. I would first call the attention of the House to Part II of the Bill and Clause 19, in which the Cardiff Corporation ask for powers to grant to any company, body or person the use of any station for public service vehicles. I believe that such a station ought to be available for all public services on reasonable terms. If the House will look at Clause 5 it will be found that the land is to be purchased under compulsory powers and the ratepayers' money is to be used. As the Clause stands there is nothing to prevent the corporation giving a preference to one or more omnibus or coach companies to the exclusion of others, and I am sure the House will agree that there a very important principle is involved. These coaching stations will probably play a very important part in the future of public passenger transport, and this House ought to insist that where they are provided out of the rates they should be available to all vehicles licensed by the Traffic Commissioners. I have here the report of the Amulree Committee that was set up in 1930 by the Minister of Transport. The powers that
are being sought in this Bill cut right across all the recommendations of that committee. But I do not propose to trouble the House with details.
Then we come to Part IV where, in Clauses 44 to 51, the Cardiff Corporation are asking for powers for wireless distribution. It is within the recollection of the House that a similar Clause was put into a Bill of the Middlesbrough Corporation, and I understand that it has since been withdrawn. It is not right for corporations surreptitiously to try to foist these powers into Bills of this kind, and then, when they find they are opposed, graciously to withdraw them. The proposal was defeated in this House by a very large majority. Then we come to Clause 76, an important Clause about which I propose to say something later. In Part IX is Clause 77, which contains quite a novel proposal, much too wide and general to be justified and one which would create a very bad precedent. But I want to draw the attention of the House particularly to Clause 76. This Clause proposes to set up a most sweeping and thoroughly undesirable form of local control of the legitimate business of advertising. It introduces a new principle and one so important that it ought not to be sanctioned in any local Bill. It is the principle of restriction of trade, even to the point of extinction, by any local authority which gets power to apply it. If it is sanctioned in the case of Cardiff no doubt other authorities will ask for it, and once the principle is conceded it will be difficult to gainsay it.
The language of the Clause is most arbitrary. It empowers the corporation to make by-laws for regulating or preventing—mark that—the exhibition of advertisements within the city or any part of it. In other words the corporation can stop altogether general billposting and illuminated signs throughout the city. We all know that the majority of people to-day are saying, "Advertise more; show the public what you have to sell." One of the greatest men in one of the highest positions, who is known as the world's best salesman, is saying continuously, "Advertise your goods," and here is a local corporation trying to prohibit it. The only safeguard for existing advertising contracts and advertising stations is a provision exempting them for a mini-
mum period of five years from the operation of any restriction or prohibitive by-law. What will be the position of an established firm of advertising contractors, faced with the possibility that some day the local council might, if there were a fanatical majority, actuated by a passion for amenity and uplift, take steps to destroy the local bill-posting and advertising industries in five years?
What is the safeguard against such action? It is a provision that a by-law shall not have effect, unless confirmed by the Home Secretary, and it is provided that, before confirming it, the Minister shall either consider objections to it or order a local inquiry. That is only extending to the Minister in the last resort the autocratic powers which the corporation seeks for itself. The Minister may or may not order a local inquiry. If he does not, and if he confirms the by-law himself, there is an end of the matter as far as the advertising industry is concerned. There is no appeal. It is probable that in most instances the Minister would settle the issue himself from a second-hand knowledge of the local conditions but, where an inquiry is ordered, the local advertising industry will have all the trouble, expense and anxiety of fighting for its very life.
Even if the provisions for Ministerial confirmation and inquiry were considered to be a satisfactory guarantee of impartial judgment, it would still be unfair to hang the sword of Damocles over the head of this important industry. Above all, it would be economic folly at a time when expansion not restriction, and confidence not uncertainty, are vital needs. These powers are so autocratic, so foreign to ordinary commercial freedom, that they are indefensible. Yet it is sought to obtain them in a local Bill, as if they were of no particular consequence. The application of an important principle of this kind is a matter of national concern and national importance, and should be considered, if at all, in its national bearings and not in relation to one small local area.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Small?

Mr. LEVY: Small as compared with a national proposition.

Mr. THORNE: The finest city in Wales.

Mr. LEVY: I never interrupt and I would ask hon. Members to extend to
me that reasonable courtesy which I extend to others. I was saying that the application of this principle should be considered, if at all, in its national bearings, because it is certain that, if it is granted in one area, its more general application will speedily be demanded by other local authorities. Last year the Salford Corporation sought powers, I believe, of a much less drastic kind. They sought to limit the number and to control the situation of advertisements. Here we are asked for power to prohibit and not merely to limit. The Home Office opposed the Salford proposal. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, whom I am happy to see here to-night, then said that such wide powers could be used for objects entirely different from considerations of amenity, and might seriously embarrass the legitimate business carried on by advertisers.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Is the hon. Member aware that the Under-Secretary, on that occasion, made those observations before a most important Amendment had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: Nevertheless they are applicable in this case. They dealt with the powers which the Salford Corporation then sought to obtain and the Under-Secretary was perfectly right. I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that nobody contradicted the Under-Secretary because he was right. He also said that the powers then sought were much too wide and would make administration at the Home Office exceedingly difficult. Those arguments apply with even greater force against the present Bill. Adequate powers for the protection of amenities are already provided in the Town and County Planning Act of 1932 and the earlier Act of 1925, and the majority of, if not all the local authorities, are prepared to carry on with those Acts. The advertising industry which is so seriously threatened by this Clause of the Cardiff Corporation Bill is a big industry with ancillary trades. This industry, with the thousands who are dependent on it up and down the country, would be jeopardised by this proposal for a wholly insufficient and relatively unworthy cause. I said I would be brief; I hope I have been brief, and I conclude by asking the House to reject this attempt at despotism.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for a very definite reason and on a very definite point of principle. Hitherto, with one or two minor exceptions the control of advertising in relation to amenities has been a matter for general legislation applicable to the whole country. Without referring to that on which I expect all hon. and right hon. Gentleman present have already informed themselves, namely the legislation of 1907 and 1925, it is sufficient to say that up to the present that legislation in the main has been found quite adequate for the purpose. Some of us think that the general law with regard to what is sometimes called the disfigurement of the countryside, might very well be examined by this House and if necessary amended and strengthened. But, as I have said, control in this matter has hitherto been a national control, exercised under Statutes of the Realm, with the exceptions, I believe, of the power given in the Salford Bill of last year and a provision in a Liverpool Corporation Bill.
Those exceptions may be all very well, but this question ought not to be left to sporadic treatment by individual local authorities, who think it desirable in particular cases, for some reason, good, bad or indifferent, that they should have a law which is beyond and in extension of the law applicable to the whole country. It is, as I say, high time that the matter was examined, but we shall never get it examined properly if, each time the question arises in this House, it arises on a private Bill. In those cases we are driven inevitably, as in the case of Salford, to examine peculiar local conditions with the result that very powerful appeals, with which one has a great deal of sympathy, are made to the people interested in the locality concerned. We shall never get the problem examined and dealt with properly if that is to be the method of procedure on each and every occasion. I am interested in no way whatever, directly or indirectly, in any single industry likely to be affected by this Bill. But I cannot help feeling that it is not a good principle that this question should be dealt with by private Bill legislation. The general body of Members in these circumstances get little opportunity of considering the problem from a national point of view, because all
sorts of local conditions, with which most of us can have little familiarity, are thrown at us. This matter ought to be dealt with on broad national lines. The existing general legislation should be carefully examined, in order to see whether it is sufficient for its purpose and how far it needs strengthening.
There is another reason for not dealing with this matter piecemeal. Most of us of middle age have not yet learned the lesson of the internal combustion engine. It has broken down every local barrier in this country; it has made a great difference in the whole fit-up of the country. In the old days you belonged to one town, and unless business and the train took you elsewhere you might never see another. Industry was localised and the people were local in their ideas. To-day we spread ourselves all over the country, even those of us who would like, for the most part to stay at home—and politicians do not get much opportunity of doing so. We go into one town and find ourselves subject to one set of by-laws. We go into another town and find that we are subject to another set of by-laws. If a man wants to extend his, business he finds that in one place he can do a certain thing, but in another place he is forbidden to do anything of the sort. More and more we shall be driven to regard the country as a whole, and not as a set of different counties, different municipalities and different districts. That is an added reason why we should deal with this matter not by local by-laws, but on a national and straight forward basis.
There is a third reason which appeals to me in connection with my everyday work. Those of us who have the task of advising local authorities—which falls to my lot sometimes—or advising people who are interfered with by the activities of local authorities, know that when we want to find out the true position of the law, we are often confronted with a welter of local legislation. When we have finished with that we have to deal with a whole system of local by-laws. Sometimes it becomes almost impossible for people whose business it is to settle these things, and who are trained for that purpose, to understand and advise upon the law on any given subject in a locality where there is local legislation. These are three reasons why I suggest to the
House on principle that this Clause 76 is a thoroughly bad Clause and ought not to be permitted to stand in the Bill.
I well recollect, in the course of the Salford Debate, one other point being made, and made with some force, by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he pointed out that it was not wise to deal with this topic by local legislation. You are going to have difficulty, because even this present Bill has to provide that there may be something in the nature of a local inquiry as to whether or not there should be by-laws, and then there is to be an inquiry by the Minister as to whether or not the by-laws should be passed, and there is a Clause that someone has to get remuneration and another Clause that people who offend against the by-laws are to be subjected to penal consequences. All those things are put into the Bill at a time when we are all, irrespective of party, trying to promote the trade and industry of the country and to sweep away the difficulties which lie in the way of so many people who only desire to carry on their business.
The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State pointed out in the Salford Debate that much the better way to deal with the problem is to deal with the matter by inquiry on the spot and to give people a right of appeal, so that they will not find themselves subject to a by-law against which they can no longer appeal. Once it is in, it is a local law and has to be enforced just like any other law. I suggest that the procedure is wrong, that the idea of a by-law is wrong, that the idea of local legislation is wrong, and I desire to support the Amendment. There is another Clause in the Bill about which at the moment, I confess, I am in some difficulty. Clause 77 says that the city engineer or any person authorised by the city engineer is to have the right at all reasonable hours to enter upon
premises within the City upon which any new building is being or is proposed to be erected or constructed and may take samples of any materials used or proposed to be used in or for the purposes of or in connection with the erection or construction of such new building.
What is to happen after that? What are they going to do next? Here is a new proposal. I think I am right in saying that this proposal has never before been put into any Bill, either local or national.
I can quite see that in connection with some Housing Bill or something of that sort it may be thought proper to demand safeguards that somebody should be entitled to do something of the sort, if the matter has been examined from a national standpoint, with a view to the national weal, and in order to see that houses are being put up which are proper houses and built of proper material. But to find this for the first time proposed for the City of Cardiff, in a local Bill, is certainly a little surprising. As I see my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in his place, I should be very much obliged if he could give us some explanation, from his point of view, of this Clause and tell us what is the object of taking the samples. I want to appreciate what is being done.
Here again is a penalty, and under Sub-section (2) of the Clause any person who hinders or obstructs or does all sorts of things in regard to the taking of the samples, is to be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 shillings. If that Clause is to appear in an Act of Parliament, it should appear after due examination in this House, and it should be dealt with for the purposes of all housing and not merely for the City of Cardiff. What is there in the City of Cardiff which makes it necessary to have samples of any materials proposed to be used there as distinct from any other city or town or township that we know in the country? We are left completely in the dark. I look, but I do not find any guidance as to what is to be done with the samples. They clearly cannot come under the Food and Drugs Act. What is to happen to the samples, and what use are the Cardiff Corporation to make of them? For aught I know, they are to be put into the Car-diff museum, but we are left absolutely in the dark from start to finish as to what it really means, what it is aimed at, why the samples are to be taken, and why somebody who objects to a sample of something on his land being taken should be made liable to a penalty of 40 shillings.
Those are, I think, two sufficient blots on the Bill. There are other Clauses in the Bill which merit examination, but I do not propose to occupy the time of the House in examining them now. I think perhaps hon. Members who are following the Debate might just glance at Clause 78, and see if they understand
what that is aimed at, and why money which has been paid into court in respect of claims in times past, on behalf of persons whose property has been taken away from them, should now be subjected to being handed over, in whole or in part, on application being made to the court, to the corporation. With these few observations, I second the Amendment.

8.8 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The principal contention of my hon. Friends the Members for Elland (Mr. Levy) and Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), on Clause 76, will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I only rise in order to give such assistance as I can to the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater in regard to Clause 77 and the matters which he has raised upon that Clause. The nature of the Clause is to enable the corporation to enter upon the site of building operations and to take from that site samples of the building materials being used there. We must distinguish. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, there is nothing novel in the power to enter upon the site. That is at the disposal of local authorities under their ordinary by-laws. What is novel, as I understand it, is the right to take a sample when you are on the site.
The hon. and learned Member asked the Committee why that Clause should be included in Cardiff when it has not yet been included anywhere else. I suggest to the House that that is just what we want to find out when the Bill goes before a Committee. A Committee of the House would really be the best constituted body to ascertain what the case is in support of this Clause. Frankly, I do not know the reason for it any more than does the hon. and learned Member. Prima facie, I do not see why any builder should object to samples being taken, and I do not suppose, really, there will be any difficulty in a normal case. Nevertheless, in Cardiff there may be same special circumstances, and I suggest to the House that under those conditions it would be right to see what ease is made in support of the contention. It would rather be emptying the baby with the bath to reject the whole Bill because of a slight novelty in this respect. In these circumstances, because it is rather a novel
Clause in a Bill of this sort, probably the House will think it is a suitable one to refer for consideration to a Committee.

8.11 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: For some reason best known to my two hon. Friends, the Members for Elland (Mr. Levy) and Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), they seem to have chosen this opportunity, the consideration of the Second Reading of the Cardiff Corporation Bill, to launch what appears to me to be a general attack on the legislative proposals of local authorities. They seem to have placed my right hon. Friend, the Lord Mayor of Cardiff, and the aldermen and citizens of that city in the dock. If that is the charge, then it is a challenge which I accept most readily.

Mr. LEVY: That is not the charge.

Captain EVANS: I would like to deal with the general aspect of the case, but to-night I am privileged to speak on behalf of this Bill at the request of the citizens of a city which has a reputation, not only in the Principality and in the United Kingdom, but throughout the world, for good government, for a fine and sound town-planning scheme, and for public buildings which are the envy of every other capital in Great Britain, and I think it is renowned, throughout Great Britain at least, for its civic dignity and its beauty, especially by those who know it. It must be rather surprising, after listening to my two hon. Friends, to realise that the actual purpose that the Corporation of Cardiff has in view is to extend and to continue to protect the amenities, pleasures and beauties of which they are so proud. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater has the advantage of me in that he is learned in the law.

Mr. THORNE: He does not know everything though.

Captain EVANS: In the 4½ years that he has been a Member of this House, I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that the hon. and learned Member has earned for himself an enviable position so far as Parliamentary skill and eloquence are concerned, and on this occasion he has conducted himself in his usual manner and made a very good job of a bad case. What is the chief objection of
the two hon. Members to the Bill? If I understand them aright, they say that, if it is desirable for Parliament to grant powers such as are contained in Clause 76, it is a matter for a public general Act and not for local legislation. I share that view to a limited degree, and if my hon. Friends were in a position to assure me to-night that they were able to persuade their right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to give Parliamentary facilities for considering a public general Act based on the principles contained in Clause 76, and if there were a reasonable prospect of that Bill being considered by Parliament in the near future, I would be the first to endeavour to persuade the Lord Mayor and citizens of Cardiff to postpone this Clause until such time as Parliament had had an opportunity of considering it from the national point of view.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: Of course this can be done by a private Members' Bill, but will the hon. Member co-operate with me in introducing such a Bill?

Captain EVANS: I should be most happy to co-operate with my hon. Friend in that way, but if be takes his suggestion to its logical conclusion he knows that after a private Members' Bill has had its First Reading, and if by the grace of God and good fortune it gets a Second Reading, that is the end of the Bill. He knows perfectly well, even if the Bill goes upstairs for consideration by a Committee of this House, that unless he is able to persuade his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to give Parliamentary time to Report and Third Reading, there is not the slightest possibility of that Measure becoming law. If this Bill goes upstairs, however, there is a reasonable prospect of it being on the Statute Book within a short space of time. Therefore, I ask my hon. and learned Friend, if he thinks it a good Measure—and he thinks it sufficiently good to receive the consideration of Parliament—why should the City of Cardiff be penalised in the meantime until Parliament has an opportunity of considering the matter? The fact is that if Clause 76 is deleted from the Bill to-night it means that Cardiff City will actually be penalised because of the foresight in town planning of past city fathers who
occupied the position of responsibility in the city corporation.
My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932. He knows very well that under Section 6 of that Act the Minister of Health is in a position to sanction certain building and town planning schemes. Unfortunately, owing to the excellent town planning schemes approved by the city corporation of Cardiff in the past, they are not enabled under Section 47 of that Act to apply to the Minister to approve a scheme. For the sake of argument, let us assume Cardiff was in that position; I would like to remind my hon. Friends that automatically we would acquire powers at least as drastic as the powers we are asking Parliament to grant us to-night under Clause 76. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No!"] My hon. Friends challenge that statement. Clause 47 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 is very long, and I will not weary the House by reading it. It enables a local authority, subject to certain rights of appeal, to require the owner of an advertisement or hoarding which seriously injures the amenities of the land to remove the advertisement or hoarding. In default of compliance with such request the local authority may themselves remove the advertisement or hoarding and recover the expenses from the owner.
That means that if the Cardiff Corporation in a new town-planning scheme are anxious to control the erection of advertisements on private houses in a road or street within that area, they are entitled and within their rights so to do. If, however, they are anxious, as they are, to control and regulate or prevent if necessary advertisements on private houses occupying a street not within the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932, that power is withheld. The Cardiff Corporation consider it is logical that the people resident in those areas should have the same amenities and protection as the people who are resident within an area under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater referred to certain by-laws. I want the House to observe that before any by-laws regulating advertisements under this Clause become law, the Secretary of State has to approve them, and he also has the right
to cause a local inquiry concerning the framing of those by-laws to be held in the city which is responsible for them. Any petitioner taking a view opposite to that of the Cardiff Corporation on the drafting or the effect of a by-law is entitled to be heard at that local inquiry. Therefore, I submit that there are not only safeguards on paper, but safeguards of a practical and real nature. In addition, I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Elland and his colleague my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater will be interested to know that the Cardiff Chamber of Trade, which represents the majority of business interests in that City, waited on the Lord Mayor and his colleagues with reference to this Measure, and, after considerable discussion on the ambitions of the local council in this direction, they came away entirely satisfied, with the obvious exception of the bill-posting interests and also, I believe, of the sign writers.
I ask my hon. Friends to observe that the Chamber of Trade represents interests which are likely to be affected by these by-laws. I would like to draw their attention to a statement which, it is to be observed, was not issued by the Town Clerk of Cardiff, but by the Cardiff Chamber of Trade, and they use these words:
The Town Clerk pointed out that the present powers of the Corporation with regard to the control of advertisements were restricted to those which affected the amenities of public parks, pleasure grounds, beauty spots, historic or public buildings, or disfigured the beauty of the landscape or the view of rural scenery. The present powers were sought in order to deal with unsightly and obnoxious advertisements in the city streets and suburban and residential districts. He pointed out that it was not intended to control advertisements which related to the trade or business carried on within the building.
Among illustrations given of the type of advertisement which it was sought to control were the following: posters and other advertising material plastered on temporarily disused buildings in the centre of the city; streamers suspended on the railings of a building announcing an exhibition or boxing tournament in another building; large and unsightly advertising devices in the gardens of private houses in residential areas. The assurance was also given that there was no intention of prohibiting reasonable illuminated signs in the main streets where such signs were now in use, but of controlling the use of such signs in residential areas, where the brilliancy of
the light might cause a nuisance to residents.
Here is an organisation whose interests might possibly be affected by a Measure of this kind, and, after discussing the matter at considerable length with the authorities who will be concerned with the framing of the by-laws they went away entirely satisfied. I ask my hon. Friends to observe that the Lord Mayor and his colleagues, in an endeavour to satisfy public opinion on this point, promised the Cardiff Chamber of Trade that before the by-laws which they themselves suggested were submitted to the Home Office for sanction the Chamber would be consulted. That is a reasonable gesture to meet any opposition.
As I have said, we are very proud of our city of Cardiff, but there are certain areas of it in which the housing conditions are not as we would like to see them and in which there is congestion. Though every endeavour is being made by the local authorities, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to do what is practicable to improve conditions at the earliest possible moment, nevertheless those conditions do exist. Is Parliament justified in depriving people who are compelled against their will to live in certain cheerless and depressing areas of amenities and facilities which are afforded to those of their brethren who are fortunate enough to live in a new area under a town planning scheme? If my hon. Friend the Member for Elland will do me the honour of coming to Cardiff one day I will show him some of these depressing streets, which would be made even more ugly by the exhibition of advertisements on private houses. I wonder what his impression would be if he woke up in Cardiff on one rainy, dreary, dull morning—a Monday morning for preference—and on putting his head out of the window found himself confronted with a rather ugly, badly—drawn and badly-coloured poster which invited him to take a good dose of Beecham's pills. It would be entirely depressing, and I imagine it would be even more depressing if he suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to take advantage of that excellent advice on the previous evening.
Let us rid our minds of all cant and humbug in this respect. People with the
Welsh temperament possesses the artistic sense and are just as sensitive to atmosphere as English people, who are privileged to live in areas which are not so depressing. I am reminded from behind that the Welsh people are even more responsive to artistic surroundings. Therefore it is the duty of the Cardiff Corporation to ask the House of Commons to assist them to do everything in their power to brighten the areas in which those people are compelled to live. When it comes to advertising, the kind of advertising those people are anxious to see is the smoke stacks of the Dowlais works, of Guest Keen's, and of Baldwins' belching forth smoke, testifying to the fact that conditions in Cardiff are prosperous and that they and their friends will find constant employment. What would happen if this Clause were struck out of the Bill? If those works were subsequently unoccupied the Cardiff Corporation would have no power to prevent them being covered with hideous advertisements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Not at the moment. Under the by-laws and the Corporation Act of 1920 they are not able to prevent the exhibition of such advertisements.

Mr. LEVY: If my hon. Friend will read the Advertisements Act, 1922, he will find that he is not quite accurate in that respect.

Captain EVANS: All I can say is that before this Bill was brought to the House of Commons the Cardiff Corporation made very careful inquiries as to the powers they already possessed to protect the amenities of the city, and came to the conclusion that the Acts already on the Statute Book did not give them the powers they now seek. Before I was interrupted I was going on to say that unless the Government take the earliest opportunity of announcing their policy in regard to the continuation of the duties on iron and steel, it may well be that in a short space of time, if those duties are rescinded, the works I have mentioned will be empty and will be covered with advertisements of foreign steel and iron. It would be quite possible for advertisements to be displayed in that way if Clause 76 were struck out. On the question of advertisements, I submit with all respect and sincerity that it is the duty of the House to give the
necessary powers to the Lord Mayor and his colleagues.
Before I conclude I wish to deal with two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, who drew attention to certain Clauses in the Bill, Clauses 15 and 19 in particular. If I understood him aright, he suggested that under Clause 19 the local authority might be tempted to give partial treatment to services of omnibuses operated by the corporation as against services operated by private enterprise. My hon. Friend probably knows that the Traffic Commissioner, through the Ministry of Transport, would be the first to prevent any such partial decision.

Mr. LEVY: That is not quite the power which the corporation are seeking. They are seeking power to grant to any body or person the use of any station or public service vehicles.

Captain EVANS: They desire that power because they wish to consider the claims of the services operated by the corporation and by the private lines. I think the Minister of Health has satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater with regard to Clause 77, but I did take the trouble to consult with the Lord Mayor and his advisers on that point, and I am assured that in the case of certain houses in Cardiff, which were built under the subsidy, and are occupied by their owners, inadequate and bad damp courses were put in owing to the fact that they were not inspected at the time of erection. If the building inspector had had the right to inspect the material and the workmanship there would not have been that cause of complaint. I may also say, as regards the builders of Cardiff, that up to the moment the local authority know of no case in which a building inspector has been prevented from inspecting a building. They have not the power under the by-laws, but their inspector has never been challenged. Nevertheless, they want to safeguard themselves by securing powers under which they can insist on the inspection of materials should a builder prove arbitrary and awkward.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am sure ray hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that many of those houses must have been built under a proper form of agreement—certainly it was so in the early
days. The Ministry laid down what regulations were to be observed and there was a proper form of contract, which the contractor was expected to sign. He will find that the corporations who entered into contracts had ample powers.

Captain EVANS: Apparently there is a difference of view on that, question, because I am assured by hon. Friends behind me that that is not the case. However, as the Minister of Health has pointed out, that is a matter which can be usefully examined by the Committee. I thank the House for having listened to my remarks, and will conclude by expressing the hope that hon. Members will take the large view and grant the Cardiff Corporation the powers which would automatically have been theirs but for the foresight of the City Corporation's predecessors, and so enable that city to protect the just rights and amenities of its citizens and maintain its reputation as one of the most beautiful capitals of the Empire.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I shall not take up time in dealing with the statement of the case for the Bill. That case has been made out very well by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I want to call attention to a matter of vital importance to a number of local authorities through whose areas the mains for the Cardiff Waterworks pass. Merthyr Tydvil Town Council are very concerned about their position, because under Clause 38 it is proposed to interfere with the amount of compensation water which passes down through the valley. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) on account of illness, I have been asked by the Merthyr Tydvil Town Council to deal with this short point.
The position is that under the Cardiff Corporation Waterworks Acts of 1884 and 1909, the corporation were authorised to construct waterworks on the River Taff fawr, such waterworks consisting of three large impounding reservoirs. Hon. Members who have travelled over the Brecknock Beacons, either from the Merthyr side or the Aberdare side, have been charmed, I am sure, with those very large lakes which retain as much water during the rainy seasons as Cardiff requires. The Acts to which I have
referred provide for a certain amount of compensation water to pass down through the Merthyr Tydvil area, a distance of some 10 miles, through a portion of the Mountain Ash Urban District area, the Pontypridd urban area and the Caerphilly urban area, to the boundaries of Cardiff. The point of view of those local authorities is that the amount of compensation water which was agreed to under the Acts to which I have referred is only just sufficient to meet requirements, because the areas are large coal-mining areas. They are very populous, but unfortunately, owing to underground workings, the sewers get broken because of subsidence, and a good deal of sewer matter finds its way into the river. So does a good dear of offensive liquid matter from the collieries, and it requires a considerable amount of water to wash it, right away.
It may be argued that in those areas a certain amount of water would be sufficient. I ask the Cardiff Corporation, and the Committee which will have the responsibility of examining the Bill, to take into account what I call the exceptional circumstances which confront these local authorities who will be affected if Clause 38 is carried in its present form. In addition to that, in the town of Merthyr Tydvil, there are some works—there are not very many, unfortunately—on the river banks which are dependent upon the water which passes down the river. As most hon. Members know, Merthyr Tydvil has the reputation of having the highest percentage of unemployment in the country. In the last 10 years the unemployed persons in that area has been round about 60 or 70 per cent. For some time the Merthyr Town Council have been anxious to induce industries to come into that area with a view to finding work for persons who are at present unemployed, and the first question which is put to the Merthyr Town Council, by industrialists inquiring for sites, is as to what the prospects are of a water supply. Unless the Merthyr Town Council can have a guarantee that there will he no reduction in the amount of compensation water provided under the Act of Parliament to which I have referred, the position will be serious.
As far as the general principles of the Bill are concerned, I shall certainly give
the Cardiff City Council all the support I can, even on Clause 76, which has been argued by hon. Members on the Government side of the House. I can say without unfairness to the Cardiff City Council, the Lord Mayor and the members of which we met recently, that they are prepared to meet the local authorities fairly, and I hope that they will come to some reasonable arrangements. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) told the House that the City Council are prepared to a very large extent to meet the wishes of the authorities of whose behalf I speak.

Captain A. EVANS: I have just had an opportunity of consulting with the Lord Mayor of Cardiff and with certain of his colleagues, on the water question, and I am authorised to give the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) this assurance, that the Cardiff Corporation will take into account the circumstances of all the petitioning parties against this Bill on the water supply question, with a view to a mutual agreement being arrived at.

Mr. HALL: In the face of that undertaking, all I would say is that I trust that the Cardiff City Council will meet the local authorities in as reasonable a manner as is possible, and that I shall give them all the support I can.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I have listened with very great interest to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) about the city which he is so proud to represent, but upon a little examination, what he said seems a little hollow. In order to understand not only what was said on behalf of the city of Cardiff, but some of the proposals of the Bill, we have to consider them in relation to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member. I remember one of his references when he sought to ask the House to believe that it was a desire of the Cardiff Corporation by means of this Bill to brighten the lives of the people, who have the good or bad fortune to live in Cardiff. He did not call attention to what I think is one of the most unfair and most impudent provisions ever inserted in any Bill by a local authority. The stand that we are taking on this Bill on this side of the House is for the protection of the poorest tenants of
the city of Cardiff. Clause 14 of the Bill reads as follows:
Nothing contained in the Rent and Mortgage interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1933, or any enactment amending or extending those Acts shall be deemed to prevent the corporation from obtaining possession of any lands, houses or property which may under the powers of this Act be acquired by the corporation and the possession of which is required by them for any of the purposes of this Act.

Mr. JANNER: May I ask the hon. and learned Member what is his purpose in raising this question when it has been intimated that the provision is to be withdrawn? Surely he is going to argue on the merits or demerits of the Bill as it stands?

Mr. LYONS: If I am to be called to order, I would rather that it should be by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, than by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner).

Mr. JANNER: I would like to point out to my hon. and learned Friend that I know the town of Cardiff very well.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): A point of Order should be addressed to me, and not to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. THORNE: Surely the hon. Member on this side has as much right to be heard as the hon. Member on that side?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. A Ruling having been given last week that it was not in order to raise a question on a Clause which had been dropped, I should like to ask whether it is in order for the hon. and learned Member to raise this Clause and call attention to it when already it has been admitted by himself that the Clause has been withdrawn?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The House has no knowledge of whether a Clause has been withdrawn or not. The withdrawal can only take place in Committee, and the House cannot be cognisant of what happens in Committee until the Committee reports to the House.

Mr. LYONS: I was referring to Clause 14, and was saying that in that Clause the Cardiff Corporation took power to say to a man whom this House has made a statutory tenant, and who has been given protection by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Acts, that the law of the
land as fixed by this House should not obtain in the City of Cardiff. I think we shall understand the temper of those who are responsible for promoting this Bill when we consider most of its provisions. I merely remarked on this particular Clause, which is in the Bill as circulated, as being thoroughly objectionable, and I think that my hon. and learned Friend who spoke in support of the Amendment would be quite willing to add this Clause to the two other Clauses to which he referred as being worthy of the Criticism of the House.
Clause 76, on which most of the Debate to-night has centred, is a change in the law which in our judgment is fundamental, and, rightly or wrongly, we think that it is not a matter appertaining to Cardiff. If there is to be an alteration of the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1925, the alteration should be by a general Act of Parliament passed by this House, having similar application throughout the country. My hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Amendment made what I think was a good point, that neither Cardiff nor any other city can be said to-day to be separate and purely local. As business expands, as transportation facilities become greater, the whole country becomes more compressed, and it is very unfortunate for business if a trader has to realise that in different towns to which he goes different laws are to be in operation.
There is another angle from which this matter may be regarded. Is another Department to be set up by the Cardiff Corporation—paid for no doubt by the harassed ratepayers if this Bill proceeds—with a director of advertising a complete staff, and a good many inspectors? Traders in Cardiff who form a substantial body of the ratepayers—people in the theatrical business, bill posters, printers, and so on—will all suffer by this additional fetter on trade. Moreover, the man with the small house who may desire to add to a small income by letting off a wall for advertisements—which to-day are very largely decorative—will not be able to do so because of this restriction, applying to Cardiff alone. I think it is about time that the spending power of local authorities, so long as we are not considering matters of public health, was lessened rather than extended in this way, and I hope the House will reject the
Bill, which in no way really helps trade, which in no way really helps the citizens of Cardiff, and which puts one city in a different position from any other. As regards the power to regulate municipal broadcasting, I think that the Corporation of Cardiff know that that provision too will be withdrawn when it gets before a Committee, so I shall say nothing about it beyond this, that it is a provision which would give to a municipality such an extension of private enterprise as would be a dangerous inroad on ordinary trade, and, therefore, I hope it will not be sanctioned.
Perhaps I may be allowed to point out an inaccuracy in the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) when he was trying to make out that there was some need for this Bill and some similarity between it and the Town and Country Planning Act. He omitted this important difference, that in certain circumstances under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, when the local authority in relation to any premises in a scheduled scheme desires to interfere with an advertisement, serves a notice, and in defiance of the action of the owner of the property proceeds itself, there is from that action of the local authority a right of appeal to petty sessions, and from petty sessions to quarter sessions. I am referring to Section 47 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932. There is no such right of appeal here. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in conjunction with the Advertisements Regulation Act, 1907, run very smoothly, and afford proper protection to the citizen, with full regard to the liberty of the subject and the proper preservation of the amenities of the district concerned. There is no need at all for this very different Measure, for this despotic power which is sought under Clause 76 of the Cardiff Corporation Bill.
For the reasons I have given, I join with those who have spoken in opposition to the Bill, and I say that because of Clause 76, Clause 14, and the other Clause mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), it marks a new era in local authority legislation. The provisions which are sought are unworkable and unnecessary, in no way promote or in any way help the citizens of Cardiff, and may
in fact become detrimental to the operation of commerce in the city to which they would apply. I hope we shall hear very shortly a statement on behalf of the Government as to the view which the Secretary of State for the Home Department takes on these matters. If there were any real need as a general proposition for the extraordinary powers which Cardiff now seeks alone, it would, I have no doubt, be met by a Measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman or some other Member of the Government; and, if I may ask the question without presumption, I would like to know whether, if the Government approve of this scheme, they have any intention of introducing a Government Measure comprehensively and nationally dealing in the ordinary way with municipal legislation, sweeping away all these local powers, and giving complete similarity throughout the municipalities. If that were so there would be no need for the present Bill, and the whole matter would be discussed when the new Bill came forward as a Government Measure. I ask that question because, if it were so, it would serve the purpose of the Cardiff Corporation, and they would not want to proceed with the present Measure. At this hour I will say no more except that I give my support to those who are opposing the Measure, and hope that we shall have some indication from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the Government have any intention of bringing in a Measure dealing with these matters for full application throughout the country.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. MUNRO: I rise to support this Bill, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans). I had intended to preface my remarks by saying that I have no intention of detaining the House for any time, but I have come to realise that a phrase of that sort at the beginning of any speech inspires a hope which rarely comes to fruition. I can endorse to the full the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend about the City of Cardiff. It is a magnificent city magnificently run, and its merits are so obvious that it does not require even a Walsh bard to sing them. As a Scotsman, I am very glad to pay that tribute to that great city. It has advantages additional to those which have been already mentioned. It is only
eight miles from the port and the very fine seaside resort of Barry, and it includes within its area the fine place of Llandaff and, incidentally, many of my constituents.
I have listened with the greatest attention to the speeches of the Opposition, and I realise to the full that the great theme in attacking the Bill is that it is not right for local authorities to introduce in private Bill legislation things which should be introduced by a general public Act. I am ready to admit that there is some substance in those statements, but I feel that there is a complete answer to them, which is that to ask Cardiff to wait till this can be arranged in a public Act would be as good as asking them to wait till the Greek Kalends. It is, in my opinion, unfair to put forward that plea. It is obviously impossible for any city to await such an event. I think the House should come down from the very excellent theories propounded by those who are opposing the Measure and treat it, not as lawyers, but as average sensible citizens. I do not for a moment mean that those two are opposites, but I feel that one must regard the Bill in an average common sense way. Apart from the general objections to the Bill, there have been two or three special objections taken to the special Clause which has been much discussed. Those objections have been, as they were on the Salford Bill, firstly on the score of expense, although that has not been so much stressed to-night as in the case of the Salford Bill. It is clear that any question of extra expense chargeable to the ratepayers and the corporation would be of a practically negligible character. It would really only be the printing of the by-laws when they have been passed.

Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that there will have to be a new department with a complete staff specially established?

Mr. MUNRO: I am convinced that there would be no case for any extra staff. I am assured that the actual building inspectors at present at work there would be sufficient and that all that would be required would be some £50 or £60 for printing the by-laws. Another objection of a more special nature which I have heard mentioned in regard to the advertising question is that it is an infringement of the liberty of the subject. I feel that that is stretching the point
a very long way, because, high as is our standard of individual liberty, in fact the highest in the world, I do not believe that anyone would object to controlling people who were spoiling the amenities and the happiness of their neighbours. I, therefore, do not consider that the point of the infringement of individual liberty is really of any great weight.
That the present powers of the Cardiff Corporation are adequate to deal with the matter is, in my opinion, a wrong statement. The Advertisements Acts of 1907 and 1925 do not give the requisite powers. Of course, they deal with the matters of spoiling rural scenery and advertisements being detrimental to parks and pleasure grounds and beauty spots, but surely those who live in mean streets have as much right to that protection, and I claim that the present position of Cardiff in this respect should be strengthened and the powers they ask should be granted. I listened to practically the whole Debate on the Salford Bill, and I feel that the new Clause, as inserted here, which really embodies the modifications accepted by those in opposition to that Bill, is entirely satisfactory. We have heard mention of the statement at that time of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—and I hope we are shortly going to hear a similar statement from him—that the Government would not object to the Bill going further because, after that Clause had been modified, as it was in the Salford Bill, the rest of the Bill was sound.
I support the Bill in every way. I remember that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) raised many objections in the Salford Debate, and I believe he has much to do with the raising of objections now. I would, therefore, appeal to him and his friends, because I know that, with his brain, which is a logical, level-headed, inquisitive and acquisitive brain, he and they in their hearts see that they cannot refuse to Cardiff what Salford had achieved.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Hon. Members have to-night been mainly concerned with Clause 76 of this Bill, and, as the House knows, I can in fact only speak with authority on that particular Clause. My hon. Friend the
Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Munro) said that he hoped to hear from me to-night a similar statement to that which I made less than 12 months ago in connection with the Salford Corporation Bill. He ought to know by this time that I would never contradict myself, and in fact my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of this Measure paid me the compliment of saying that I was right. If he knew me better he would know that I was always right, or, shall I say, perhaps nearly always right.
Before I deal with Clause 76 may I say a word in connection with the water Clauses which were raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). May I also say a word about his hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead), on whose behalf he was speaking. We all regret to hear of the very serious illness of the hon. Member. Although many of us hold very different political views from him, nevertheless the whole House will wish him a speedy recovery to complete health. With regard to the water Clauses, the hon. Member made special reference to Clause 38 dealing with the compensation water. I know that he does not expect me to give him any answer at all on that matter. The points will, I am sure, be considered in Committee, and he has already received an undertaking from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans), and I think that we may leave the matter at that.
Now for Clause 76. It has been copied, not in detail, but in principle, from the Salford Corporation Bill, and when we discussed that Bill last July I took exception to the by-law procedure. I cannot do better than quote the exact words I used on that occasion, because my hon. Friend says that he will be happy if I hold the same views to-night as I held when the Salford Corporation Bill was being discussed. What I said then was that:
My right hon. Friend does not like the by-law procedure at all in respect of a matter of this kind. The question as to whether advertisements are prohibited in a particular area is much more suitable for the decision on the spot by persons familiar with local conditions. Any decision which may be made should be made on the spot, and be subject to the right of appeal to a court—perhaps the court of quarter ses-
sions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1933; col. 2903, Vol. 280.]
Then I went on to say something else about that particular Bill. In fact, I said that if a certain Amendment were accepted to the Clause under discussion in connection with the Salford Corporation Bill which would make clear that the power to prohibit advertisements was to be limited to the consideration of the amenities of the district—and it was accepted—then the Home Office would not ask the House to reject the whole Clause. That, of course, would have meant, as the House will recollect, the rejection of the whole Bill, for it was before the House for its Report and Third Reading at such a time when, if the Clause had had to be recommitted to the Committee upstairs, there would not have been time for it to have been discussed again by the House of Commons during that Session, and the whole of the procedure would have had to be gone through again from the very commencement at very heavy expense.
I repeat that my right hon. Friend did not then, and does not now, like the by-law procedure, and I submit that it is not a sound argument to say that because we accepted that procedure on the Salford Corporation Bill we must accept it again now. As I have said, the Salford Bill had been through Committee. It had had a long discussion in Committee at very heavy expense to all those concerned, and if the procedure which we dislike, and of which we expressed our dislike, had been resisted on the Report stage, many months of labour on that Bill would have been wasted, and the Bill, as I have said, had to be accepted with the by-law procedure or the whole Bill would have been lost. We were not then prepared to carry our resistance so far and to have inflicted in those circumstances such a heavy expenditure upon the Corporation of Salford.
To-night the position is surely somewhat different. This is the Second Reading of the Cardiff Corporation Bill. There is plenty of time to amend the Bill by taking out the by-law procedure if it is thought necessary in Committee. To-night I simply wish to make the position clear that the Home Office is not opposed in principle to the protection of residential amenities. We are not opposed to that at all. We are only
opposed to the method which is contained in this particular Clause. We are not, however, prepared to support the deletion of the Clause at this stage. I think that that would be somewhat harsh treatment before it has had an opportunity of being discussed in greater detail upstairs. The matter can well be dealt with when the Bill goes upstairs in Committee, and I therefore suggest—it is only a suggestion—to the opponents of this particular Clause that they should not press their Amendment to a Division to-night. Their views, and those which I have attempted to express, can, and no doubt, will be repeated during the Committee stage. The views of my right hon. Friend will certainly be put forward by the Home Office representative who will attend before the Committee, and, if after that further expression of opinion, the Committee decide to keep the Clause as it is at present drafted, then I submit to the House there will be a further opportunity provided here on the Floor of the House for hon. Members to convince the House that their line has been the right one. I therefore respectfully suggest to my hon. Friends who are the opponents of this Clause that, while reserving the right to press on other occasions the arguments which have been brought to bear with so much force to-night, the Bill might this evening with advantage be given a Second Reading by the House.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: After the very important statement we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department my friends and I who have been concerned with the criticism of the Bill feel that we must take obviously very serious notice of the suggestion which he has made. I hope that I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman's views when I gather that he does not himself like the Clause as it stands. He made some reference to the by-law procedure to-night of which I did not gather the significance.

Mr. HACKING: The significance is that we are definitely opposed to by-law procedure.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very interested to have a definite statement from the representative of the Government who
speaks on behalf of the Home Office, and with all the experience in the matter that they do not like the Clause in its present form. That is a very important indication to the Committee which will consider the Bill upstairs if it receives a Second Reading. I think that in those circumstances the duty of my hon. Friends is clear and that we ought not to press to a Division the Amendment "That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months," and, moreover, that we ought not to move the Instruction. There is on the Order Paper a Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) who once before this Session was deprived of his opportunity, and we hope therefore, that the remainder of this discussion will not occupy more than a few minutes.
Last summer some of us, at the end of the Session, discovered that the general law of the land was being altered in the Salford Bill, which had already been through Committee. We had a very interesting Debate, and I believe that if we had gone to a Division the Salford Corporation would have lost their powers, but we recognised that they had been to all the expense of the procedure upstairs and that in the past they had had certain legislation. Therefore, somewhat reluctantly but out of consideration for all the circumstances, we agreed to allow the Clause to go through, with an Amendment of some considerable importance. I was responsible on that occasion for announcing the compromise, as, in one sense, I am responsible to-night. We definitely reserved our powers to oppose any other Bill that came forward containing the provision to which we then agreed, and we are now asserting our rights. We say that what was done then should not create a precedent.
In agreeing to the suggestions of the Under-Secretary I should like to make it clear that, if the Clause is not amended in the way which we think, on balance, is reasonable, and there is not introduced what I call a general alteration in the law of the land, which, if it is to be made, ought to be made in a Government Bill amending the Acts of 1907 and 1922, we reserve our rights later to move the deletion of the Clause on further consideration of the Bill. I do not know how this Bill was constructed. Some of us have looked at it very carefully. Clause 14, which I understand is
to be abandoned, if it had gone through would have given the corporation power to clear out a statutory tenant under the Rent Restrictions Act. Part VI, which is also abandoned, would have given them power in respect of a wireless relay station, which this House denied to Middlesbrough last year. Clause 79 proposes to alter the Local Government Act in respect of the compounding limit. Honestly, I do not understand why a corporation, when it desires particular powers, searches the world to find out what powers it ought not to have, shoves them into a Bill and brings them here, and when the Debate comes along we have an announcement that these things are withdrawn.

Captain A. EVANS: May I remind the hon. Member that so far as compounding of the rates is concerned that concession was made in response to an appeal of the ratepayers, who are concerned in the introduction of the Bill. The abolition of the wireless Clause from the Measure was done with respect to the expressed wish of Parliament on the Middlesbrough Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: There was no concession to the ratepayers. The ratepayers turned it down. I am criticising the corporation for putting into a Bill a Clause so absurd as that. I am also criticising the corporation for putting into the Bill a wireless Clause which Parliament had rejected in the case of Middlesbrough. I do not think that the Cardiff Corporation have been too intelligent. Their one act of intelligence has been to ask my hon. and gallant Friend to make a very able and eloquent speech in defence of an almost impossible case. I suggest to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) that he should ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and that he should not move the Instruction standing in his name.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to crave the indulgence of the House to say a few words, inasmuch as one of the Clauses of the Bill affects the bottom part of my constituency indirectly. I refer to the water Clause, to which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) referred. Having had a general assurance from the hon. and gallant Mem-
ber for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) I agreed to leave the matter until we saw what the nature of the general discussion might be at a later stage. I am not quite sure that I am justified, having regard to the fact that he has graciously indicated an intention to withdraw his opposition, temporarily, in engaging the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) in a controversy as to whether some of his remarks in regard to the Cardiff Corporation were justified or otherwise. The hon. Member will forgive me for saying that the Lord Mayor and Corporation of a city like Cardiff have to do their best, according to their lights, in order to serve the interests of the citizens in their municipal charge. I think the hon. Member was a title unfair in suggesting that they had shown less intelligence than would perhaps have been shown if he had been in charge of the Cardiff Corporation. If he knew as much about the City of Cardiff from the municipal point of view as I do, I think he would feel that he was justified in withdrawing his somewhat unkind observation. There is really only one Clause to which the opposition have taken objection.

Mr. LEVY: That is not so.

Mr. JONES: Yes, Clause 14 has gone. We know that the proposal in regard to Clause 14 is not to be proceeded with. We know that Part VI is not to be proceeded with. For all effective purposes only one Clause has been thoroughly discussed to-night—Clause 76.

Mr. WILLIAMS: And Clause 77.

Mr. JONES: For all practical purposes one Clause alone has been discussed in detail. Whatever the case against the Cardiff Corporation may be, and I admit that there may be a case from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, although I do not accept it, surely hon. Members would not suggest that, because there is one Clause, which might be amended in Committee, which is unacceptable, the whole of the 97 Clauses should be thrown out?

Mr. LEVY: No.

Mr. JONES: Then the case for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading has gone. I am glad that hon. Members have seen the wisdom of conducting their opposition, if they feel so disposed, in
Committee upstairs. We can then go into the points.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We cannot.

Mr. JONES: Those who are on the Committee can examine the case against Clause 76 in detail, when the full case in relation to it has been put, for and against. I agree with the praise that has been expressed with regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), and I think he will agree with me that, because of the development of business in relation to township with township, it is the more necessary that a city like Cardiff, so well known for its aesthetic achievements, should preserve its personality, and that we ought to enable the city to develop its case fully at a later stage. I suppose we may take it that the opposition to the Second Reading is withdrawn and also the Motion for the Instruction to the Committee. I am sure that the promoters of the Bill will be only too willing to give every possible consideration to the arguments advanced against any particular Clause when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clause 76."—[Mr. Croom-Johnson.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) does not wish to move the Instruction; is that so?

Mr. LEVY: That is so.

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

9.26 p.m.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, steps should be taken to establish a standing committee of representatives of all parts of the Empire to promote co-operation in all forms of Empire Development.
As the House will remember, there was a Debate only a fortnight ago on the question of Empire migration. That
would, obviously, fall within the scope of my Motion this evening, but I do not propose to say anything with regard to it, partly because it was debated so recently but also because at Question Time to-day I was told by the President of the Board of Trade that the adverse balance for the year 1933 of migration within the Empire was close on 24,000 against this country. In other words, close on 24,000 individuals more came to this country from the Empire than went from this country to the Empire. While that is the case, although we may want to plan migration schemes for a future date, when economic conditions are better in the Dominions, it is at the present moment hardly practical politics.
My purpose this evening is rather to deal with questions of Empire trade. The most recent declaration that I have been able to find on behalf of His Majesty's Government and of the Dominions was that made last July at the Monetary and Economic Conference and signed on behalf of this country and the five principal Dominions, in these words:
The undersigned Delegations have agreed that they will recommend their Governments to consult with one another from time to time on monetary and economic policy with a view to establishing their common purpose, and to the framing of such measures as may conduce towards its achievement.
This declaration, signed on behalf of the whole British Empire, hardly goes far enough for our present economic needs. My Motion goes a good deal further than was thought necessary last July, and the reason why further action is necessary is because of recent political developments in this country and of general world economic depression. We remember that in pre-War days, when we had what was called Free Trade, there used to be Colonial and Imperial Conferences every three or four years to discuss matters of general Empire interests. I remember very well indeed one in 1909, when the German naval menace first became prominent, at which steps were taken to increase the Fleet and the Dominions came forward most splendidly to our assistance. It was found in those days that every three or four years was usually often enough for these Imperial Conferences to be held.
Now, however, the position is entirely different. We have now become, for
better or for worse, a nation which has measures of tariffs, quotas and prohibitions, and it stands to reason that in all these trade questions it is necessary for us to keep the closest possible touch with Dominion views. A certain amount, no doubt, is done at the present time, but the position is an entirely different one from what it was in pre-War days because of our different fiscal policy. Australia two or three years ago put a definite prohibition on the import of many articles coming from this country and elsewhere, owing to the home economic needs, and to some extent we have similar prohibitions in this country now. Attempts were made to get over these difficulties at the World Economic Conference, but, unfortunately, they failed. It is all the more necessary, in view of the breakdown last July of the World Economic Conference, which we hoped would remove many of these world barriers to trade, that if we cannot get a world flow of trade we should get the greatest possible freedom of trade and the greatest possible understanding of trade conditions between ourselves and the British Dominions overseas.
A start was, I believe, made at Ottawa. I hold that the contacts which were established 18 months ago should be kept more close than, as far as I can tell, they are being kept at the present time. I am well aware how much is already being done in that direction. Under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association opportunities are given to Members of Parliament to pay visits to British Dominions overseas. I was fortunate enough to visit Bermuda two years ago, and I know of visits that were paid by other Members to South Africa, Australia and elsewhere. I also know what is done here to get Members of Parliament to study economic conditions as they affect the British Dominions. I know also, of course, the work that has been done for many years past by the Imperial Shipping Committee, presided over so ably by Sir Holford Mackinder. Less than a year ago there was an Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation which went very exhaustively into these questions. Any one who reads that Committee's Report will see that much is being done at the present time, a good deal of it on
scientific lines. Scientific research is obviously of the very greatest value to the primary producer in different parts of the Empire, and if the Mother Country helps a small Colony by a scientific inquiry into the diseases caused by the local pests to cocoa, tea and such products, we should not grudge our help towards the work. A good deal is also done by the Imperial Economic Committee, working on instructions received from the Imperial Conference, 1930.
Questions of policy will, however, arise in the future to such an extent that we must have closer co-operation in matters of this kind than we have had in the past. I will deal with one subject, and one only, in any detail, and that is butter. Our market here for butter is, in round figures, 32 lbs. per head per annum—1,000,000,000 lbs. per year. About nine-tenths of that has been coming to us from overseas; one-tenth is being produced in this country, and we have now by agreement with Denmark given her a definite proportion of butter imports into this country. I ask, in connection with that fact, what is the position of New Zealand with regard to butter, which is her main export? I do not want to weary the House with many facts and figures, but when I find that the export of butter from New Zealand in 1932 was worth close on £11,000,000, and in bulk was 245,000,000 lbs., and that it increased by some 40 per cent. in the previous two years, I begin to realise the possible repercussions upon New Zealand of our allotment of an undue share of the English markets to Denmark. I am not for a moment saying that we have done so, but if we allot a considerable share of the British market in butter to Denmark, we are going to make it extraordinarily difficult for our primary producers overseas to expand in the way we want them to expand.
That is one of the great difficulties that I see calling for the closest possible co-operation between ourselves and the Dominions, and I suggest that it must be done with an expert committee almost continuously in session considering these difficult trade questions. I have here a note that there are three great things we want in this country at the present time. We want to export our goods, obviously; we want, also,
scope for profitable investment of any spare capital we may have in this country, and we want scope for migration. The country I have just mentioned, Denmark, gives us only one out of these three. It gives us scope to export our goods, but there is no scope for capital investment in Denmark. That is common knowledge. There is no scope for the migration of British individuals to Denmark. That also is common knowledge. In New Zealand there is scope for all three. The Argentine—and I am not going into the question of Argentine meat at the moment—does give us scope for two out of the three objects, the export of goods and also profitable investment, when the exchange with the Argentine does not stop it. But in the case of New Zealand there are all these three different possibilities for our country, against one in the case of Denmark and two in that of the Argentine.
The question of the harmonisation of these difficult problems is one of the greatest intensity. Naturally we want to export our manufactured articles to the Dominions. The Dominions want to build up secondary industries in their own country to keep their people employed because they have large town populations and suffer a great deal from unemployment. But in this country, in addition to exporting, we very naturally and rightly try to develop and protect our own agriculture. The Dominions, who are living largely on the export of primary products, want to keep this market of ours as largely as possible. It is extremely difficult to reconcile these considerations. As a case in point, I find the exports of New Zealand in 1932, the latest year available, were over £32,000,000. Of this a little more than £1,000,000 was to Australia and well under £1,000,000 to the United States of America, which are about half the distance away from New Zealand and have a population three times as large as ours. It shows the extent to which New Zealand is depending upon us. There are some analogous figures, not quite so striking, for Australia. It shows the all-importance to New Zealand of this market, and all of us know the great importance of the New Zealand market to us for the export of manufactured articles; and I maintain we must have closer co-operation in trade
and commercial questions than we have had in the past.
As to which body should be set up, that is a question for the home Government, in consultation with the Dominions, but there is one practical suggestion I venture to make. Every September it is usual for a Minister of our self-governing Dominions to go to the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva. I understand that the Dominions send a responsible Minister every year to Geneva. Now it stands to reason that it is very difficult for a resident Minister of the Dominions, especially Australia or New Zealand, to be permanently in London. He gets out of touch with local affairs, and has to share responsibility with Members of the Cabinet 12,000 miles away. So it is difficult to get the close personal touch that is expected of Cabinet Ministers in these days, even allowing for the fact that Australia and New Zealand will, by Imperial Airways, be reduced to half their distance in time from us very shortly But if a Minister is coming over each year in September, surely it will be possible for him to be in London in July or October, and in that way once a year, at all events, you would have in this country a member of each of the Dominion Governments who could give general instructions either to the Commercial Counsellor or the High Commissioner, so that there would be a liaison officer for the rest of the year.
This question is now about as important from the point of view of the Empire as was another Imperial committee set up just 30 years ago. I refer to the Committee of Imperial Defence. Those who followed what happened in the War know that, but for the action taken by that committee and its strategic mission, the War would have had a very different ending. In this question of economic defence and co-operation, our position is now very much what it was a generation ago when the Committee of Imperial Defence was set up, and I hope that the Government, if they cannot immediately this evening announce their intention of carrying out my suggestion, will be able to hold out hopes and tell us what is being done, and that everything possible will be done to harmonise these questions of Imperial economics to the good of the Empire as a whole.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend who proposed the Motion is very well equipped to do so, as he has had a long personal experience of Empire trade. The Motion seeks to set up a permanent body consisting of the best brains of the Empire, and having to deal with the greatest task in the Empire, to be a guiding and driving force in its development. The days of laissez faire in this great task have gone for ever. Mr. Bruce, more than two years ago, said the time had gone by for just talking about Imperial co-operation. The results of Ottawa were the first fruits of our new economic order. Those results were produced by long months of careful preparation and co-operation between the home Government and the Dominion Governments and also the Colonial Governments. May I say here that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose illness we all so greatly regret, and whose return in restored health we are anxious to see, did a great work for the Empire at Ottawa, a work that so far has not been universally recognised. He put our great Colonial Empire in its rightful place on the trade map of the Empire, and already considerable results have been achieved by the agreements which he was instrumental in making between the Colonies and the Dominions. This question is very largely one of distribution and exchange. My hon. and gallant Friend has dealt to a large extent with that. It is also a question of transport, particularly shipping and freight, of defence and currency, and, above all, of redistribution of our white population, and settlement.
My hon. and gallant Friend has touched on the question of shipping. That is essentially a question in which the Empire should act as a unit. Before the War 52 per cent. of the world's shipping was British, but to-day only 25 per cent. is British. When we realise the fact that Japan pays her sailors 56s. a month and that we pay ours 162s.; when we realise that foreign countries are subsidising their shipping to the extent of £30,000,000 a year, we realise the intensive competition that our shipping has to meet. Having regard to the fact that we have command of ports and seaways and a large part of the markets of the world and the production of raw materials, it can be seen with what immense strength the
Empire could act in the matter. There are 60,000 British seamen and 3,000 master mariners unemployed at the present time. There are hundreds and hundreds of our tramp steamers, our cargo liners, tied up in our ports: those
swift shuttles of the Empire's loom
That bind us main to main.
We want to send them to sea again by the increase of our trade, and we want to send on board those 60,000 seamen and 3,000 master mariners. We can only do it by the development of our Empire trade, and by adopting such means of co-operation as are recommended in this Motion.
I would like to speak on other matters, particularly defence, which was debated this afternoon; but time is limited and there are others who want to speak. Let me say a few words about a subject that has been often discussed, the subject of migration. The story of migration has been a depressing one in recent years. It was mentioned by the mover of this Resolution, with reference to an answer given to him at Question Time, that 24,000 more British people returned to this country than left it. That is an additional reason for adopting this Motion. The need for setting in motion again a system of migration is more urgent than ever. It is for us to make our need our opportunity. Ours is an Empire with boundless resources. Let us take advantage of them. There are obstacles on both sides, perhaps chiefly on the side of the Dominions, who are reluctant to receive our people at the present time, fearing that the newcomers would add to the number of their unemployed, which has been very considerable but I am glad to say is now decreasing. The reluctance on their part is very understandable.
We have difficulties on our side. There is no question but that the urbanisation of our people and the attractions of the dole render those of our people who could migrate less willing to do so, but there are at any moment thousands ready to settle overseas, if they receive a reasonable opportunity. I would remind the House of the thousands of miners, some of the finest human material and many of them with knowledge of land working, who are out of employment and unfortunately are never likely to obtain employment in the mines again. They would make splendid material for settlers
in our Colonies. What do we find? During the last 10 years 600,000 foreigners have settled in Canada. Why did they go there? Because they were attracted by their own people, who already had settlements in Canada on a small scale. Those settlements have grown and these people have been helped to go there by their friends already settled in Canada, and by their people in Europe.
If 600,000 foreigners can settle in Canada, why not 600,000 Britons? Some people say, "Oh, perhaps it is that the foreigner makes a better settler." That is not the opinion of the United States. When the United States recently revised their quota of emigrants they increased the British quota and diminished every other quota. Someone may say that it is all very well to speak in general terms of migration, but that it is impossible to press on with the matter at present, that we should let it lie and take it up again when times are more prosperous. I am glad to think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not take that view. He has been working with a committee in the Dominions Office on this question, and on the last occasion when he spoke on this subject he said that he had very nearly come to the end of his labours. We hope shortly to hear what the results of those labours may be.
There are two forms of migration. There is the migration of individuals by infiltration. There is also community settlement. Some people think that these two forms are mutually exclusive. They are nothing of the kind; there is nothing to prevent their going on side by side. There are two practical schemes before us now. One is the Hornby Scheme. General Hornby is not a visionary. He is a man who made a small settlement, but a successful one, in Alberta. He lives there himself with his family, at Lethbridge Farm, Alberta. He is an enthusiast in the cause of settlement. He came here early last year and interviewed those who are interested in the matter. He got into touch with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and discussed matters with him, and he went on to Yorkshire to interview the migration committees there, which are very keen and only waiting for the Government to give the lead so that they can spring into life and take up this great question again. Then he re-
turned to Canada and inquired into the possibility of settlement—he already had a great deal of knowledge—from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. I have here the results of his investigations. He interviewed a number of leading people, members of Governments in Canada, and the result is that he has 23 locations for community settlements, beginning with Nova Scotia and going on to British Columbia, and of these he has personally inspected 10. This is what he says:
I am glad to be able to tell you that locations for the first 10 settlements under my plan have now been selected in the Eastern Provinces, namely,"—
With regard to the Eastern Provinces, we seem to have neglected Nova Scotia to a large extent as a place of settlement. There is a flourishing Danish colony in Nova Scotia. The place has a climate very like our own; it is close by, and we should look very carefully at Nova Scotia as a site for a community settlement—
two in the Province of Quebec, four in the Province of Ontario, two in the Province of Nova Scotia and two in the Province of New Brunswick. Each settlement is to consist of around 100 farms or 1,000 farms in all, establishing 1,000 new British settler families, probably 4,000 or 5,000 persons. It is proposed that each of these 10 settlements shall be permanently linked up to a county or town in Great Britain and that it shall be financed partly by a loan for capital expenditure to be guaranteed by the United Kingdom Government and partly by an annual grant in aid from the Empire Settlement Act annual allotment.
That is the basis of the Hornby scheme. Those who have read the morning papers must have noticed the scheme drawn up after nine months hard work by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: By the committee over which I had the honour to preside.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I had the honour to be a member of that committee and I think we all recognise that the guiding and driving force in it was my hon. and gallant Friend himself. This report is well worth reading. The basis of the report is indicated by the following passage:
Taking the long view it is clear that what the Dominions need above all else is population in order to spread their taxes, rates and the burden of their debt over a larger number of inhabitants, and also to
increase the consumption of their manufactured goods from the cities and enlarge the freightage on their railways. There is a further point which we cannot dismiss and that is the strategic position of the Dominions. The world is hungry for land; old-established populations are increasing at a great pace and are looking covetously upon the few remaining waste spaces of the world.
That puts shortly the urgency of the problem for the Dominions. There is no need to dwell upon its urgency for ourselves. Thus there are two schemes for the consideration of such a body as we propose to establish. We want the question considered not in any spirit of mere officialdom. We do not want to go back into the old grooves. We want it to be considered in the spirit that this is an Empire need, and ought to be taken in hand in a wide generous spirit of foresight and knowledge. These two plans have much in common. The first point which they have in common is that there must be co-operation between the homeland and Dominion Governments. Second, there must be suitable locations, thoroughly surveyed. That is essential. We have had recent lamentable evidence of the results of putting settlers on to land that has not been properly surveyed. That must never happen again. The third point is training. The fourth point is that the settlers should be drawn from towns and counties in Great Britain which will take an active part in the settlement of their own people. The fifth point is that the settlements thus formed will be organised and directed as to settling, developing and marketing by each settlement agency, whether a chartered company such as is advocated in the plan published this morning or by a county or city at home or a group of cities.
The great flaw in previous schemes has been dual management. The schemes I have mentioned envisage single management—co-operation between the Dominions and the Homeland but single management of setltement by the Homeland agencies. There will be the inducement to the Dominions that the agency, whatever it may be, will bring capital into the Dominions and population of the right kind.
A certain number of people think that the word "Empire" in the term "British Empire" suggests arbitrary and overbearing power. That is not true of the
British Empire to-day. Let me read what was said by Canon Cody, an ex-Minister of Education in Ontario, himself a Canadian and a very eloquent man:
The term 'British Commonwealth of Nations' has its place and use and meaning but it is not as broad, not as ancient and it is not as heart-stirring as the term 'the British Empire' which implies a declaration of freedom for British folk and not a declaration of exploitation or tyranny against any other son of man.
Then that great and broad-minded Empire statesman, General Smuts, speaking in Canada two or three years ago, said:
To my mind the great task that was before us now that Dominion status had been fully realised and the Empire was recognised as a group of equal States, was to see in what way we could develop the unity of the Empire; and if we did not do that in the course of time we might be left with a situation where something so valuable to the world, something so great and so remarkable in history as the Empire, might have disappeared.
Mr. Bruce, General Smuts, Canon Cody all have spoken eloquently in favour of Empire co-operation and unity and it is with a strong desire to further that cause that we offer this Motion to the House and to the Government. Recently a Member of the Cabinet—I do not use his exact words—described stagnation as a deadly sin. Last night we had on the wireless a stimulating broadcast by an experienced business man. We may not agree with all he said, but there was imagination and foresight in it. The young people of the country are calling for action, and there is nothing that will gratify that hunger for action, nothing that will send a thrill through the Empire so much as the taking over of this great question by our best brains and the formation of a plan for Empire development.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: I am going to support this Motion which asks that steps should be taken to form a representative Standing Committee for Empire development. It is time that we laid the foundations of an organisation in the British Commonwealth of Nations to consider political and economic developments in the Commonwealth. I am not going to suggest to-night in detail the lines on which such an organisation should work—I am taking the Motion at its face value—but even if I were, I am sure the House would
not expect me to agree in detail with my two hon. Friends opposite. Moreover, if I may allude to the speech of our enthusiast from Windsor on migration, I would say that we had a Debate on this subject a fortnight ago, we are promised another a fortnight to-day, and I think, in view of the lack of possibility of anything being done immediately in the way of migration, I might leave that question out on this occasion.
But let us look at the facts regarding the relations between this country and the Dominions at the present time. As a result of the Imperial Conference of 1920 and of the Statute of Westminster, the Parliamentary sovereignty of Great Britain has gone. We are all bound to admit that. The Dominions now enjoy Parliamentary and legislative status and are equal in every respect before the law with us. There has been practical decentralisation within the Dominions and our own country. I do not object to that for one moment, because I agree with the idea of this freedom and independence of the different countries within the Empire, but I do say that, if steps are not taken to bring about closer co-operation between them, there is a danger of disruption.
If we are not awake to the possibilities, then it is possible that the biggest political structure that has ever been known will be broken and destroyed completely. I am an internationalist, and I believe in the amity and the unity of all nations, but we have a planned commonwealth of nations, which, with real co-operation, ought to be the greatest instrument for peace in the world. I believe that we have not done as much as we could have done in the League of Nations in that direction, but I do not want an Imperial bloc setting up tariffs and barriers against the rest of the world. If there is to be one, let it be one of co-operation within the councils of the nations for peace, liberty, human progress, democracy, and freedom. It seems as though we are to be, within the British Commonwealth, the only democratic countries in the world.
Let me state the position of the party that I represent and of which I am a loyal member on this subject. Some hon. Members know of "Labour and the Nation," and if I may quote a few words from "Labour and the Nation," these are they:
It is the policy of the Labour party to take steps which would ensure closer political and economic relationships between Great Britain, India, and the self-governing Dominions overseas, and the other constituent communities of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
If I may quote just the beginning of a very long resolution passed at the Labour party conference as to the Labour party policy on this matter of our relations with the British Commonwealth of Nations, it is this:
That steps should be taken to ensure closer political and economic relationships between Great Britain, India, and the self-governing Dominions overseas, and the other constituent States of the British Commonewalth, and asks the Government to submit proposals at an early date—

(a) for closer personal contact between the Government of Great Britain and the Governments of the Dominions and the other States of the British Commonwealth;
(b) for the representation of Opposition"—

which I think can be included in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall)—
as well as Government opinion at such conference.

(c) for a survey of the natural resources of the British Commonwealth as a whole with a view to the scientific direction of their use and to prevent exploitation in the interests of private capitalists."

I agree with that, and after our recent experience with regard to Newfoundland, I think that might be considered by such a committee, if ever it is set in being. Now let me take the other side of our movement, namely, the trade union side, as expressed by the Trades Union Congress General Council. They say:
The maintenance of close relations with the rest of the world does not prevent us from urging the creation of machinery and, if necessary, formal agreements with the Dominions for the further development of inter-Commonwealth trade and for the best possible distribution of economic activities within the British Commonwealth.
There is no doubt there as to what is the attitude of the Labour movement on both its political and trade union sides. That has been the policy of the Labour party now for some years, but very little has been done in that direction, and nothing is being done, so far as I know just now, to ensure those closer political and economic relationships being achieved. We must remember that it is impossible for us, in dealing with subjects of this
kind, to dictate any action to or to domineer over the Dominions. It is almost as great a difficulty to persuade them into any action. I was a member of the Empire Marketing Board for some years. The Empire Marketing Board did a great work in the directions of scientific research, of publicity for the Empire, and of marketing the produce of the Empire. It was the greatest effort that has ever been undertaken in the direction of Empire co-operation and development. But the Empire Marketing Board has gone, and why has it gone? Simply because we could not obtain the co-operation of a substantial nature which we had a right to expect from the Dominions in its work, and that is the position with regard to the Empire Marketing Board.
All that we have left is, as the hon. Member for East Lewisham pointed out, the Empire Parliamentary Association. There we have an association, with a very able secretary in Sir Howard d'Egville, which does a good deal in Empire co-operation. It ought to be in a position to do more than it is doing in order to provide information and to arrange personal visits of Members of Parliament from all parts of the Empire and to establish contact with public men and women and with people in all parts of the Commonwealth. There is room for some machinery of consultation to be set up in the British Empire in order to understand and help one another in our economic problems. I give my support to this Motion. In all countries we know that trade is far from being as good as it ought to be, that unemployment figures are high, that poverty exists everywhere, and that the financial position of most countries is very precarious. While I believe that Commonwealth arrangements and agreements should be made, I am convinced that a great deal more can be done by our own Government than they have done and are doing to create a world revival. After all, neither we as a nation nor as a Commonwealth can live unto ourselves alone. It is necessary to extend the ideas of co-operation and brotherhood to all nations and peoples in the world if we are to be safe for peace and democracy and to secure economic salvation.

10.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel CHARLES KERR: I am glad to hear the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) say that this great and important question is not a party question. It ought not to be a party question, and it is gratifying to feel that the whole House is united in trying to do something to further the development of our Empire. I happen to have been one of the members of the committee that toiled for nine months on this subject and I wish to bring one or two points before the House. Let us suppose that the vast areas which are uninhabited within the Empire were contiguous with this country. Would they be in the condition in which they are to-day? Certainly not. Our population would be spread over them, and I feel that in these days the distances that separate us from these areas should not make any difference to our efforts to populate and develop them. We know quite well that sooner or later they will be populated. Why not begin doing it now? Let us begin to get the thin edge of the wedge in and have some scheme to begin at once to help to develop and populate them. An hon. Member spoke about the dangers of these areas. I remember many years ago listening to the late Lord Northcliffe, after his world tour, saying to a debating club to which I belonged, "Does anybody realise why the Japanese are not in Australia? They are not there for one reason—the British Navy." We have seen lately certain learned men in Japan who have quite openly said that it is not right that one nation should control vast areas capable of development and of accommodating millions of people and do nothing with those areas. Therefore, there is a danger to our Empire and to the Dominions themselves if we do not begin seriously to consider the question of populating the British Empire with British people.
There is another thing, which I mentioned in a speech in the House not very long ago. I apologise for mentioning it again, but it is a serious point. In the years between 1920 and 1930, 600,000 foreigners settled in Canada. I do not know how many British people settled there during the same period, but there were very, very few. That means that slowly but surely, people who are not British people are occupying our Dominions. They are excellent people,
there is nothing against them. They can make good, and if they can I believe that our people can also, given the opportunity. They have various organisations which help them to get there and to settle, and I believe I am right in stating that to-day more than 50 per cent. of the people living in Canada are non-British. This is a very serious matter, and the Government ought to begin immediately to do something about it. We have the people here, undoubtedly we can supply the finance, and I believe it would be worth while.
There has been a lot of talk in the last year about the need for the Government to spend money on schemes of development—public works and otherwise. What better public work could they do than help to develop our Empire, and thus relieve the congestion at home? It may be said that the Dominions do not want us. I do not believe that. From evidence I have had in the last year there is no doubt whatever that if England said she would accept responsibility for the people she sent there the Dominions would welcome them. Also, I believe that the Dominions are becoming aware that they will not get the money for the development of their countries until they have increased their population. They have borrowed up to the hilt, per head of population. Therefore, I consider there is a very different outlook with regard to emigration than was the case a short time ago. It is no use repeating what has been said over and over again about the tragedy of unemployment. I believe that the spirit of enterprise which led our fathers and our grandfathers—and incidentally myself, when I was 18—to go out to the Colonies, is still prevalent in this country if the young people are given the opportunity. I offer a suggestion to the Government in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Bill. In the training centres for young people and for adults which are to be set up under the Unemployment Insurance Bill let them concentrate on giving a little instruction about the opportunities that may occur within the Empire. Let those who attend these training centres study this question. Those of them who wish to go overseas should find available plenty of information which will help them to make a success of their lives. It would be a very
good way of occupying their time at these centres.
Finally, I would like to say a word on the subject of finance. Figures are always dull, but let us consider the relief which a scheme such as has been suggested to-night would bring to the Government in the responsibility which they now bear for those who are unemployed. I do not say that this question should be dealt with merely from an unemployment point of view, because there are plenty of people who are employed who have the spirit of enterprise and who, not seeing very much to "go for" here, would say, "I will take a chance and go out and begin life in a new country." The finance of the scheme would give relief to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and would relieve the Government of responsibility. I feel quite confident that, as a result of the development of a scheme of this sort, in the end the scheme would cost the Government nothing. I beg the Government to begin now to deal with this matter. In my maiden speech in 1932 I dealt with this subject, and I have been working on it ever since. That is nearly two years ago, but nothing has been done. I am quite certain that something will be done. There is land waiting for development, and it is sure to be developed some day. Let us begin now.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. R. T. EVANS: I wholeheartedly support this Motion. In the short time at my disposal I cannot adduce all the reasons in favour of its acceptance, not merely as an academic proposition but as a basis for action by the Government. I invite the House to give attention to an aspect that has already been emphasised, and that is the implications of the creation of this committee upon the problem of migration. I have visited certain countries of the Empire, and wherever I have gone I have always made inquiries into the operation of systems of settlement. I cannot but believe that the economic position of this country is such that sooner or later the Government will, by sheer force of circumstances, be compelled to take action. I would much prefer the problem of Empire settlement to be taken up in an atmosphere such as we now might have, rather than in a panic atmosphere later on.
It is not a problem to be dealt with lightly. Let me issue a word of warning. There is no hon. Member in this
House, even including the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who has a more profound faith in the British Empire than I have, but we should be rational in our consideration of this matter, and we should remember that the countries of the Empire have not been immune from the stresses due to the world forces which have been operative during the past few years. The Dominions have had to face serious economic crises, and the use of machinery has affected the life of the Dominions to a very considerable extent. I remember standing on the steps of a ranch in Canada and asking the Scottish rancher why it was that now they did not allow Welsh miners to come to Canada for the harvest. I was informed, "That's Massey Harris." He said, "There was a time when I employed every spring between 30 and 50 workers, and every autumn somewhere between 130 and 150, but now, with Massey Harris's combine, I need only 14 men all the year round." Go to the Middle West States in America; you find that mechanisation, or what they call "technological advance," has come along and has driven millions of people off the land. You cannot expect Canada or any of our Dominions to welcome haphazard settlers, people who are just drifting along and waiting for a job, when their Governments are face to face with a very serious problem of labour displacement owing to technological advance.
I had an experience in Canada of the value of planned settlement. There was a time when youths were encouraged to go to Canada, and, when they went, some employer might take them who was temperamentally unfitted and economically inadequate to keep such a lad. The lad was unhappy, he drifted from that farm, and went in quest of a job to another, and finally drifted to the town simply to swell the ranks of the unemployed. An extraordinarily intelligent scheme was fashioned between the Young Men's Christian Association in this country and the United Church of Canada, whereby these farms were inspected, and farmers were approved as suitable people for the employment and training of youths. At Norval, in Ontario, a hostel was built, so that a young boy who was hardly dealt with need not drift to the town; he went to the hostel, where his training con-
tinued, he was compelled to work for his keep, and was sent to another farm where he was welcomed. I remember going on a prize-giving day to the hostel at Norval, and I was astonished at the enthusiasm of these lads. There were all sorts of international competitions, with lads from Wales competing in games and technical pursuits with lads from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I realised then the value of planned settlement. It was a small experiment, but it seemed to me to indicate the lines along which we might move if we were to do anything worth while.
May I just refer to the question of finance? I have no doubt that, if we are to people these void lands and develop the potential resources of the Empire, we shall have to spend money, and it would be futile for the House facilely to pass a Resolution without facing up to its financial implications. But may I suggest that the Government take into account what unemployment is costing us to-day? Some time ago, as a result of inquiries from various Ministries, I made a statistical survey of a depressed area, namely, Wales, and I should like, if I may, to give the House a few figures. In five years we paid out through the Employment Exchanges of Wales £35,634,000. During that time the total income of the Insurance Fund from employers and workmen in Wales was only £6,300,000, so that we paid out through the Employment Exchanges in Wales—I am leaving out of the computation public assistance to able-bodied men—in transitional payments and insurance benefit alone we paid out in five years £29,000,000 more than was received in insurance contributions. I suggest with great respect that that money could have been very well employed in creating opportunities of work, and that the Government, unless they are going to allow certain of these areas, and my own country of Wales in particular, to become degraded into parasite communities, with vast aggregations of their people becoming stagnant and degraded with prolonged idleness, have to face up to one of two alternatives, and I think to both, namely, creating in Wales and in other depressed areas development commissions co-ordinating all the Governmental and Departmental activities, and facing up to their responsibility for putting idle people in employment.
I do not think that even that in itself would be enough, because I believe that the Empire offers very great opportunities, not for haphazard individual settlement, a wandering from place to place, with diminishing resources, looking for work, but for the establishment of communities. After all, that is the traditional way of Colonial development. You had Nova Scotia, you had New England, and back in the seventeenth century New Wales. When Wales was going through a period of profound depression, William Vaughan established settlements in Newfoundland and, if you look at Mason's map of 1624, you will find round Trepassy Bay such names as Carmarthen, Cardigan, Pembroke, settlements embodying a sense of community with the people drawn from the same race. That is the traditional way whereby we have colonised the British Empire. We might very well return to that tradition. We have a great opportunity. The people of this country will not allow capital resources in terms of human life and human potentialities forever to become increasingly demoralised. A great responsibility rests upon the Government. I would urge them to develop our home and imperial resources with all their might and main. In this Motion they have an opportunity of saying that they are prepared to enrich the void lands of the Empire and bind it anew and make it what it always, I hope, will be, a model to the world of a community of nations pledged to peace and progress.

10.37 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am certain that the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having introduced this subject. The last speech makes us regret all the more that certain other affairs have intruded into the evening, so that far too short a time has been devoted to a matter of first-class importance. I have watched some Members rising each time to whose speeches I and the rest of the House would very much like to listen, but I am afraid the affairs of Cardiff may possibly result in their being cut out. My hon. and gallant Friend stated the case and put forward arguments with which many of us would agree, including my right hon. Friends representing the Government on this bench. The British
Empire covers a vast part of the land area of the earth. It is composed of a large number of countries, some of them self-governing, some not self-governing. The economic produce of those vast areas is very varied and the economic relations of those different countries is very complex. Clearly if economic relations so complex are to be managed as they should be, there must be a good deal of co-operation and co-ordination of effort. As a matter of fact, certain Imperial bodies exist for bringing about that co-operation and co-ordination in certain departments. Some of them have been referred to. There is the Imperial Economic Committee, for instance, there is the Imperial Shipping Committee, there is the Executive Council of the various Imperial Agricultural Bureau, there is the Imperial Communications Advisory Committee and various other bodies. Certain departments of the work are already covered by committees or bodies representative of the different parts of the Empire concerned.
There was also the Empire Marketing Board, in many ways the most promising of them all, alas now deceased, and the decease of the Empire Marketing Board is very relevant to the subject that we are discussing. It was a body which was extending its interest and its influence over many important Imperial questions, and it was doing admirable work. There was not a single Government in the Empire, either in this country, in the Dominions or in the Colonies which was not prepared to pay the highest possible tribute to the work of the Empire Marketing Board and yet, when only a few months ago the question as to whether arrangements could be made for the continuance of the Empire Marketing Board was raised, it was found impossible to make those arrangements and come to the necessary agreement. It was not any fault of this Government that the Empire Marketing Board came to an end. Our representatives, when that matter was discussed, made it clear that we would like the Empire Marketing Board to continue doing its work and that we would for our part make whatever arrangements, financial or otherwise, were necessary in order to enable it to continue. But that body, which was something far short of the kind of statutory standing committee which my hon. Friend has
suggested, for reasons which I need not go into, was brought to an end.
Its work was not entirely brought to an end. A good deal of the work which it was doing is being carried on to-day under other Imperial co-operative committees. My right hon. Friend, for instance, was able to announce from this Box not long ago that in the year 1934–35 something like £200,000 would be spent by various bodies in the Empire in continuing the research work which the Empire Marketing Board was supervising so admirably. Therefore, a certain amount of this economic co-operation is going on. But my hon. Friend is not satisfied. He wants a standing committee big enough and authoritative enough to deal with questions of Empire development in a general way, and to cover the whole field. There is a great deal to be said for that, but I am certain that he will agree with me that if that Standing Committee is to be established and is really to do useful work there must be agreement by all the governments of the Empire concerned in order to establish it. It is an absolutely essential condition that all the governments concerned should have their representatives on such a committee. It is essential that they should be an agreed body set up by agreement between the governments of the Empire concerned. The fate of the Empire Marketing Board indicates the kind of reception which such a proposal would get at this moment.
As my hon. Friend reminded the House, the whole question of the machinery necessary in these times to promote economic co-operation within the Empire has been discussed within the last few months. The question came up at the Ottawa Conference, but the delegates at Ottawa were very busy working out the intricate details of that series of trade treaties which resulted from the Conference, and they therefore postponed the discussion of this matter of machinery of economic development. But before they left Ottawa they decided to establish a special Committee which should devote the whole of its time to examining the question of economic co-operation. A committee was set up last year, known as the Skelton Committee, after the very distinguished Canadian representative who sat in the chair, and that Committee was to do the following things:
To consider the means of facilitating economic consultation and co-operation between the several governments of the Commonwealth, including—
I leave out certain words that are not relevant to my point—
an examination of what alterations or modifications, if any, in the existing machinery for such co-operation within the Commonwealth are desirable.
Therefore, it was perfectly open to that committee to recommend that such a standing committee as has been discussed to-night, or any other committee should be established. After very full examination of the question, extending over many weeks, the committee reported. It made various recommendations, which are being carried into effect, but it certainly did not recommend the establishment of a standing committee to watch over the great question of Empire development. That, really, is the answer to the Motion put down for discussion this evening. Whatever our views may be of the Motion, however anxious we may be to establish more machinery than exists at present, that machinery is only going to be useful and is only going to function properly if it is agreed to by all the Governments concerned and all the Governments concerned are ready to co-operate in it. I know that the recommendations of the Skelton Committee fall very far short of the kind of machinery which many people have been suggesting.
So far as the Government are concerned we should like to establish as comprehensive a machinery as is possible for promoting economic co-operation and the co-ordination of all our efforts in the economic field. Our views have been expressed time after time at Imperial Conferences and committees when this question has been discussed. We should not stand in the way of the establishment of whatever comprehensive machinery is necessary, but we alone cannot decide to establish that machinery, nor could any Dominion alone decide to establish it. It has to be much more widely agreed. If such a committee as has been suggested, or something approaching it, did not come out of the Skelton Committee, I am afraid that at this moment it is not practical politics to contemplate anything further. I am quite certain that the recommendations of the Skelton Committee achieved the maximum of what can be agreed in
present circumstances by the Governments of the Empire.
I made a number of other notes of points in the Debate, which has been kept very short. There are, however, some hon. Members who are anxious to speak, and I think I have said enough to express the point of view of the Government on this matter. Therefore, in order, at any rate, that one other hon. Member may get in, I think I may be excused if I do not deal with questions such as butter and other points that have been raised. The greater part of the speeches have been devoted to migration, but I am afraid that on that question I can only use a phrase which is used so often at Question Time, and that is that I cannot add anything to what I said on a previous occasion about two weeks ago. To sum up the attitude of the Government, we shall use to the utmost the machine for Imperial economic co-operation which exists, and with regard to any further machinery we certainly shall not lose any opportunity of making the machinery as comprehensive as is necessary. We shall seize any opportunity that comes along for making the machinery more adequate to carry on the tremendous work of economic development and the harmonising of economic relations within the British Empire.

10.50 p.m.

Dr. WILLIAM McLEAN: I should like to put in a plea for doing what we can to provide machinery for co-operation. We have sooner or later to face the elaboration of an Empire development plan that would co-ordinate in an economic unit all development in Empire countries. It may be profitable to sketch briefly what this plan would entail. In the first place, it would mean the planning of production and marketing on an Empire basis; that is production for markets assured by Empire preferences, foreign agreements and otherwise. In the second place, we want mutual agreement as to the lines of development, so that each Empire country will produce the commodities which are most economic and most profitable to it. In the third place, development will require communications and transport facilities; in the last place it will require labour, which, of course, includes the question of migration.
The foundation of such a plan was laid at Ottawa. It would, of course, be subject to continual revision and modification as conditions changed and experience indicated. In the preparation of the plan we have to consider the United Kingdom, the Colonial Empire and the Dominions as an economic unit. An examination of what is being done discloses that in this country we are approaching a national development plan, and also that there is gradually evolving a Colonial Empire development plan. As yet, however, there is no co-ordination with the Dominions in a comprehensive manner. Survey work has been done, which is an essential preliminary to all planning, by the Imperial Economic Committee and the Imperial Committee, but no comprehensive planning is undertaken by them. These are the only committees which remain to deal with inter-Empire matters. A standing committee or some similar machinery is necessary to undertake development planning. There are difficulties, but I submit that it should be easier to come to such arrangements with Empire countries than with foreign countries. There is no suggestion that the interests of one Empire country would be subordinated to those of another. It is a simple economic fact that unless we co-operate in development planning, standards canot be improved and may not even be maintained.
We might examine for a moment one or two of the questions raised. There is the consideration of the underlying principles of all planning for development on this scale. First of all, development depends on the potential production and markets; and then we have labour and finance. That is the old formula: men, money and markets. This presumes economic migration. I hold that migration should be economic; it should be treated in relation to this plan and not as an isolated problem. A policy of economic nationalism for any unit of the Empire is not possible unless on a comparatively low standard of living, so that Empire and foreign trade are essential. Another important point is that economic circumstances have made it necessary for the Dominions to industrialise themselves, and this fact one fears must be accepted as permanent. It is no longer a question of complementary trade as in the case of the Colonies, where
they supply raw material and we supply manufactures. These seem to me to be the principles on which this Empire planning would be conducted.
I made the suggestion that in this country we are approaching a national development plan. I think that is obvious when we consider that agriculture and industry are being planned and so are transport, land and the public services, and we have large markets assured by preferences and agreements. We have never before been in a better position for planning with the Dominions. Again, I refer to the Colonial Empire Development Plan which is being gradually built up on the survey of production and trade development. This includes the possibilities of production of certain commodities and the markets and labour available. This basis of information is essential in preparing colony development plans and programmes of communications, public services, health, education and other things which are necessary and are possible owing to trade development. Such a wide study of production gives a guide to the development of commodities most suitable and profitable in each colony. It would be, for example, uneconomic to plant more sugar or rubber, because there is already a large world over-production in these commodities. Another recent development is the co-operation in marketing which is taking place.
I suggest that this study of colonial Empire development may well serve as a model for that wider Empire planning which the proposed Committee would undertake. I should like to join with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) who referred to the excellent work being done by the Secretary of State for the Colonies not only in the complete
preparations for the Ottawa Conference and the successful results in getting preferences from the Dominions for all the Colonies but also to the work done since in instituting and carrying out this survey of production and trade development in the Colonies which will guide them in their future development.
The preliminary work so essential to any planning is being done by the Imperial Shipping Committee and the Imperial Economic Committee. The Imperial Shipping Committee deals with specific questions referred to it by Empire Governments regarding shipping facilities, harbours, etc., but it has made no general survey of shipping routes and facilities, and one of the reasons given is that it has not had the money to do so. Again, the Imperial Economic Committee deals with marketing enquiries and trade surveys regarding production and consumption in Empire and foreign countries, the import and export figures, the competitive situation and the progress in production and export in the Empire compared with foreign countries. After the closing of the Empire Marketing Board it took on the publication of the Market Intelligence Notes and the world surveys of trade and production. I suggest that Empire Governments should come together and, on the basis of all this very valuable information, work out a common plan of Empire development.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'Clock.